# Plains Products Terminals LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 520090018  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2009-06-26

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.603(b), 192.605(a).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving Plains Products Terminals LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.603(b),  192.605(a). The case was opened on 2009-06-26 and is reported as closed as of 2015-02-12. Proposed civil penalty: $108,800. Assessed civil penalty: $108,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

520090018_closure letter_02122015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_closure%20letter_02122015.pdf

520090018_closure letter_02122015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_closure%20letter_02122015_text.pdf

520090018_Decision on Reconsideration_08302013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_08302013.pdf

520090018_Decision on Reconsideration_08302013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_08302013_text.pdf

520090018_FinalOrder_07082011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_FinalOrder_07082011.pdf

520090018_FinalOrder_07082011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_FinalOrder_07082011_text.pdf

520090018_NOPV PCP PCO_06262009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06262009.pdf

520090018_NOPV PCP PCO_06262009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06262009_text.pdf

520090018_NOPV PCP PCO_06262009_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
June 26, 2009
Mr. Jordan Janak
Director, Environmental & Regulatory Compliance
Plains Products Terminals LLC
c/o Plains Pipeline LLC
P.O. Box 4648
Houston, TX 77210-4648
CPF 5-2009-0018
Dear Mr. Janak:
On November 4, 2008, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected your
Martinez Terminal Gas Line in Martinez, California.
As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the
probable violations are:
1. §192.603 General Provisions.
(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures
established under §192.605.



Operator staff could not provide implementation records to demonstrate they were properly
administering the procedures. Specifically, records documenting the following activities were all
unavailable at the time of the inspection: the procedural manual review required under
§192.605(a), review of personnel work under §192.605(b)(8) and §192.605(c)(4), a location
specific emergency plan required by §192.615(b)(2), emergency procedure training required by
§192.615(b)(3), liaison with public officials required by §192.615(c), public awareness program
activities required by §192.616 (e, f, and g), pipeline patrolling required by §192.705, leak surveys
for years other than 2007 as required by §192.706, inspection and testing of pressure limiting and
regulating stations required by §192.739 (under PG&E supply contract), and determination of
adequate overpressure protection as required by §192.743.
2. §192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline, a manual for
conducting operations and maintenance. For transmission lines, the manual must
also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This manual must be
reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at
least once each calendar year. This manual must be prepared before operations of a
pipeline commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where
operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
At the time of the inspection, the operator did not have specific written procedures for the natural
gas pipeline. Some applicable procedures were available in its Part 195 hazardous liquid pipeline
manual that is used for their intrastate pipelines inspected by the California State Fire Marshal, but
a comprehensive procedural manual for operation, maintenance and emergencies was not available
for our inspector’s review. Based upon our conversations with your field staff, the operator
apparently made a decision to consider the natural gas pipeline to be non-regulated under Part 192.
It does appear some operations and maintenance activities, such as corrosion control monitoring
for the pipeline, were performed along with analogous Part 195 work. This resulted in only partial
compliance with the Federal safety regulations.
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000
for each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and
supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that
you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $108,800 as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
1 $44,400
2 $64,400
2



Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to items 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Plains
Products Terminals. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made
a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in
Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be
advised that all material you submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being
made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must
provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential
treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of
this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and
authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice
without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2009-0018 and for each document
you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Christopher Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 J. Stahoviak (#120716)
3



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Plains Products Terminals a Compliance Order
incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Plains Products
Terminals with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to failure to keep records of
required operations and maintenance activities as listed, the operator must perform
and document all such required activities.
2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to lack of a procedural manual
for operations, maintenance, and emergency response, the operator must either
develop a free-standing manual for its natural gas pipeline, or adapt its existing
hazardous liquid procedural manual to include the required procedures that must be
adhered to for the natural gas pipeline.
3. The operator must develop and perform all required procedures within 90 days.
4. Plains Products Terminals shall maintain documentation of the safety improvement
costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris
Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. Costs shall 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.
4

520090018_closure letter_02122015_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
February 12, 2015
Mr. Troy Valenzuela
Vice President of Environmental Health and Safety
Plains Marketing, L.P.
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF 5-2009-0018
Closure Letter
Dear Mr. Valenzuela:
On July 8, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued a Final Order to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. in the above-referenced case. This
Final Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review
of the documentation you provided, confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, and a field
inspection conducted by agency personnel on December 17, 2014, 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,
Chris Hoidal
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 J. Stahoviak (#120716)

520090018_FinalOrder_07082011_text.pdf

JUL 8 2011
Mr. John Keffer
Vice President, Terminals
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 5-2009-0018
Dear Mr. Keffer:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $108,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty
payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed
effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, Pipeline Safety
Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA
Mr. Jordan Janek
Senior Director, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
P.O. Box 4648
Houston, TX 77210-4648
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5326]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., ) CPF No. 5-2009-0018
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On November 4, 2008, 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 Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. (Plains or Respondent), the operator of a 1-mile pipeline system that
supplies natural gas to a terminal in Martinez, California.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated June 26, 2009, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that Plains had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.603(b) and 192.605(a) and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $108,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Plains responded to the Notice by letter dated July 28, 2009 (Response). The company contested
the allegations on legal grounds, arguing that its pipeline is not subject to the requirements in
Part 192. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states:
§ 192.603 General provisions.
(a) . . . .
(b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the
procedures established under §192.605.
1 SEC Form 10-K, Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., 2010,
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1070423/000110465910010102/a09-36206_110k.htm



2
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep the
records necessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605. In particular, the
Notice alleged that Plains did not have any records concerning: (1) the procedural manual
required under § 192.605(a); the review of personnel work required under § 192.605(b)(8) and
(c)(4); the emergency plan required under § 192.615; the emergency training procedures required
under § 192.615(c); the public awareness program required under § 192.616(e)-(g); the pipeline
patrolling program required under § 192.705; the leak surveys required under § 192.706 (other
than for the 2007 calendar year); the relief device inspection and testing required under
§ 192.739; and the overpressure protection determinations required under § 192.743.
In its Response, Plains argued that its pipeline is not subject to any of the requirements of 49
C.F.R. Part 192, because it is not a gathering line, transmission line, or distribution line used in
the transportation of gas. Specifically, Respondent stated that its 1-mile pipeline supplies fuel
gas to an intermittent operating thermal oxidizer and process heater at the Martinez terminal, and
that its normal operating pressure is 90 psig. Plains further noted that its pipeline interconnects
with a Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) transmission line, that it is located downstream from a
regulator and customer meter, and that it is the sole user of the gas provided by PG & E.
Based on these facts, Respondent asserted that its pipeline “is definitely not a gathering or
distribution line.” Plains also provided a more detailed explanation for why its pipeline is not a
transmission line, arguing that it operated at a hoop stress that is below 20 percent of its specified
minimum yield strength (SMYS), did not transport gas within a storage field or to distribution
center or storage facility, and did not transport gas to a large volume customer according to the
definition provided in 49 C.F.R. § 192.3 and a February 14, 1990 letter of interpretation.2
Accordingly, Respondent argued that its pipeline is not a gathering line, transmission line, or
distribution line used for the transportation of gas or subject to the pipeline safety requirements.
Section 192.3 states that for purposes of 49 C.F.R. Part 192:
Transmission line means a pipeline, other than a gathering line, that:
(1) Transports gas from a gathering line or storage facility to a
distribution center, storage facility, or large volume customer that is not
down-stream from a distribution center; (2) operates at a hoop stress of 20
percent or more of SMYS; or (3) transports gas within a storage field.
NOTE: A large volume customer may receive similar volumes of gas as
a distribution center, and includes factories, power plants, and institutional
users of gas.
For purposes of this case, I accept Respondent’s contentions that its pipeline is not a gathering
line or a distribution line, and that the applicability of Part 192 turns solely on whether its
pipeline is a transmission line used for the transportation of gas. With regard to the latter, I also
accept Respondent’s assertion that its pipeline does not operate at a hoop stress of 20 percent or
more of SMYS or transport gas within a storage field. Therefore, the only remaining issue is
whether Respondent’s pipeline “transports gas from a gathering line or storage facility” to a
“large volume customer that is not down-stream from a distribution center.”
2 The Response refers to the interpretation as PI-89-019, dated September 18, 1989. However, the relevant
interpretation is actually PI-90-004, dated February 14, 1990.



3
The “determination of whether a pipeline is . . . transmission line” is made “on a case-by-case
basis depending on the set of circumstances for each line.
”3 Citing a February 14, 1990 letter of
interpretation, Respondent first argues that a pipeline which operates at 90 psig cannot be
considered a transmission line for purposes of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.
examples of large volume customers provided in § 192.3, i.e., factories, power plants, and
institutional users of gas, consume “tens to hundreds of millions of cubic feet [of gas] per day,”
while “[t]he average gas delivery to the Martinez Terminal over the past years was 0.25 million
cubic feet.” According to Respondent, that makes it “more . . . akin to a small commercial
customer, a term used in conjunction with residential customers in PHMSA’s definition of a
service line.”
4 Plains further argues that the
I do not find either of these arguments persuasive.
With regard to the first contention, the February 14, 1990 letter of interpretation concluded that
the pipeline at issue in that case, a tap on an interstate pipeline which operated in the range of
400-800 psig, was making large volume deliveries for purposes § 192.3. It did not establish that
range as a minimum threshold or exclude a pipeline operating at less pressure from that
definition. In fact, in a subsequent rulemaking, PHMSA stated that it had chosen not to “specify
a minimum volume of gas a pipeline must transport to a customer to qualify as transmission” for
purposes of Part 192, because “[v]olumes vary, and setting an arbitrary threshold might unfairly
reclassify some existing lines.”5
With regard to the second contention, the Martinez pipeline begins at a PG&E transmission line,
where a pressure regulator and customer meter are located, and transports fuel gas to a terminal
located approximately 1-mile away. In so doing, it crosses an interstate highway and delivers, on
average, approximately 252,000 cubic feet of fuel gas each day. Under these circumstances, I
cannot find that the Plains pipeline is “akin to a small commercial customer.” Rather, it is a
pipeline that transports gas to a large volume customer, i.e., a transmission line subject to the
requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 192.
Respondent did not contest the allegation of violation on any other grounds. Accordingly, based
upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by
failing to keep the records necessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a), which states:
§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline,
a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance
activities and for emergency response. For transmission lines, the manual
must also include procedures for handling abnormal operations. This
3 In the Matter of Unocal Corporation, PHMSA Interpretation #PI-96-021 (Sep. 25, 1996) (available at
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps).
4 The Response refers to the interpretation as PI-89-019, dated September 18, 1989. However, the relevant
interpretation is actually PI-90-004, dated February 14, 1990.
5 Regulatory Review; Gas Pipeline Safety Standards, 61 FR 28770, 28772 (June 6, 1996).



4
manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator at intervals not
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. This manual
must be prepared before operations of a pipeline system commence.
Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at locations where
operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to have a manual
of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency
response. In particular, the Notice alleged that Plains had determined that its pipeline was not
subject to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and therefore did not have a comprehensive
manual for performing these activities.
For the reasons provided in Item 1, I find that Respondent’s pipeline is a transmission line
subject to the requirements of Part 192. Based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that
Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) by failing to have a manual of written procedures for
conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without
any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $108,800 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $44,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.603, for failing to keep the records necessary to administer the procedures established
under § 192.605. Plains did not dispute the factual basis for that allegation, but argued that its
pipeline was not subject to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 as matter of law. For the
reasons provided above, I find that Respondent’s pipeline transports gas to a large volume
customer and is a regulated transmission line. Plains has not argued that the penalty should be
reduced on any other grounds and the proposed amount is justified by the relevant assessment
considerations, including those that relate to the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the
violation, and the degree of operator culpability. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $44,400 for violating
49 C.F.R. § 192.603.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $64,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.605(a), for failing to have a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and
maintenance activities and for emergency response. Plains did not dispute the factual basis for
that allegation, but argued that its pipeline was not subject to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part



5
192 as matter of law. For the reasons provided above, I find that Respondent’s pipeline
transports gas to a large volume customer and is a regulated transmission line. Plains has not
argued that the penalty should be reduced on any other grounds and the proposed amount is
justified by the relevant assessment considerations, including those that relate to the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, and the degree of operator culpability. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $64,400 for violating 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a).
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $108,800 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual
rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.603(b) and 195.605(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under
chapter 601. 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 § 192.603 (Item 1), Respondent must develop and
implement procedures for maintaining all of the records necessary to administer the
procedures established under 192.605.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.605 (Item 2), Respondent must develop a
manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities
and for emergency response.
3. Respondent must complete the actions in Items 1 and 2 within 90 days.
4. It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement
costs associated with fulfilling this compliance Order and submit the total to Chris
Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA. It is requested that the costs be reported
in two categories: (1) total costs associated with preparation/revision of plans,



6
procedures, studies and analyses, and (2) total cost associated with replacements,
additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
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.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $100,000 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. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: 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. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of this Final Order by the
Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all
other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520090018_Decision on Reconsideration_08302013_text.pdf

AUGUST 30, 2013
Mr. Greg L. Armstrong
Chairman and CEO
Plains All American Pipeline, LP
333 Clay Street, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Re: CPF No. 5-2009-0018
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
Enclosed please find the Decision on Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. It
grants your Petition for Reconsideration, in part, to the extent that you sought reconsideration of
an erroneous factual determination in the July 8, 2011 Final Order that the Martinez pipeline was
a transmission pipeline, but denies your Petition insofar as it requested that the Final Order be
vacated in its entirety for lack of PHMSA jurisdiction over the pipeline. The Decision upholds
the findings of violation and the civil penalty set forth in the Final Order. Service of the
Decision by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided
under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS
Ms. Linda Daugherty, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
William V. Murchison, Esquire, Counsel for Petitioner, 325 North St. Paul Street, Suite
2700, Dallas, TX 75201
Mr. Jordan R. Janek, Senior Director, Environmental and Regulatory Compliance,
Plains All American Pipeline, LP, P.O. Box 4648, Houston, TX 77210-4648
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN 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 )
Plains All American Pipeline, LP, ) )
)
)
Petitioner. )
_____________________________ )
CPF No. 5-2009-0018
DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
In a July 8, 2011 Final Order, I found that Plains All American Pipeline, LP (Plains or
Petitioner), had committed two violations of the natural gas pipeline safety regulations in
49 C.F.R. Part 192 with respect to its Martinez Pipeline.
1 Specifically, I found that Plains had
violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records for administering its operations,
maintenance, and emergency procedures; and had violated § 192.605(a) by failing to have a
complete manual of procedures for conducting operations, maintenance, and emergency
activities.
2 I assessed Plains a civil penalty of $108,000 for committing these violations and
ordered the company to take certain actions to comply with the cited regulations.
3
On September 2, 2011, Plains submitted a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final
Order.
4 In its Petition, Plains contends that the Martinez Pipeline is “not a gathering line, is not a
distribution line, [and] is not a transmission line” and therefore is not subject to the Part 192
pipeline safety regulations at all.
5 Petitioner further contends that because the Martinez Pipeline
is an intrastate pipeline, PHMSA lacks authority to regulate it insofar as PHMSA has delegated
1 In the Matter of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 5-2009-0018 (Jul. 8, 2011). The
original Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) was issued
to Plains Products Terminals, LLC, the operator of the Martinez Pipeline. The Final Order, however, was issued to
Plains Products Terminal’s parent company, Plains All American Pipeline, LLC. The Petition was filed on behalf of
both entities.
2 Final Order at pp. 1-4.
3 Id. at pp. 4-6.
4 On July 20, 2011, Plains submitted a request for an extension of the 20-day deadline for filing its Petition under
49 C.F.R. § 190.215, which PHMSA granted. On August 5, 2011, Plains submitted an additional request to extend
the filing deadline until September 15, 2011, which PHMSA also granted. On November 6, 2011, PHMSA granted
a stay of the Final Order pending the issuance of a Decision on Reconsideration.
5 Petition at pp. 13.



2
direct regulatory responsibility for intrastate natural gas pipelines in California to the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in accordance with the annual certification process set
forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60105. For these reasons, Petitioner contends that the Final Order should be
vacated in its entirety for lack of PHMSA jurisdiction and authority over the pipeline. On
December 21, 2011, the Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), submitted a Response
to the Petition (Response) and on January 4, 2012, Plains submitted a Reply to the Response
(Reply).
Having reviewed the record, including all factual and legal arguments, I find that the
July 8, 2011 Final Order made an erroneous factual determination that the Martinez Pipeline is a
transmission line. I further find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes the Martinez
Pipeline is a distribution line, not a transmission line. Accordingly, the Petition is granted in
part, to the extent that it sought reconsideration of this erroneous factual determination. I also
find that the Martinez Pipeline, as an intrastate distribution pipeline subject to the jurisdiction of
49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., is subject to PHMSA’s direct regulatory authority because,
notwithstanding its § 60105 certification, the CPUC does not actually regulate California lines
such as the Martinez Pipeline that are not within the definition of a “public utility” subject to the
CPUC’s authority under state law. Accordingly, the Petition is denied insofar as it requested that
the Final Order be vacated in its entirety for lack of PHMSA jurisdiction and authority over the
pipeline.
Background
The Martinez Pipeline is a six-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline constructed in 1995 that
originates at a meter run located in the 1900 block of Marina Vista Avenue in Martinez, Contra
Costa County, California, and transports natural gas a distance of approximately one mile to
Petitioner’s Martinez Petroleum Products Terminal (Terminal). Petitioner, a publicly-traded
company engaged in the transportation, storage, and marketing of petroleum and natural-gas-
related petroleum products, is the operator of the pipeline, having acquired it on
November 15, 2006.6 The gas transported in the pipeline supplies a thermal oxidizer unit and a
process heater at the Terminal. The Terminal is the sole consumer of the gas transported by the
pipeline.
PHMSA has a history of regulating the Martinez Pipeline and its prior operators, including on-
site inspections by PHMSA in 2001, 2005, and 2008. On September 20, 2004, PHMSA issued a
Final Order in an enforcement action against Shore Terminals, LLC, the former operator of the
Martinez Pipeline.7 This Final Order required that certain actions be taken to comply with the
federal pipeline safety regulations, including establishing written operating and maintenance
procedures, recordkeeping programs, and the placement of markers along the route of the
pipeline. These actions had not all been completed by the time Plains acquired the pipeline in
November of 2006. Therefore, this enforcement proceeding was still open at the time Plains
6 http://www.paalp.com/ (last accessed Apr. 11, 2012).
7 In the Matter of Shore Terminals, LLC, CPF No. 5-2001-0010, Final Order (September 20, 2004). The Research
and Special Programs Administration was PHMSA’s predecessor agency.



3
acquired the pipeline and presumably, through its due diligence process, Plains was aware that
PHMSA had exercised federal authority over the pipeline in the past.
On November 4, 2008, an inspector from the Western Region, OPS, performed an on-site
pipeline safety inspection of the Martinez Pipeline. Following the inspection, by letter dated
June 26, 2009, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director) issued the Notice to Plains,
alleging that it had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.603(b) and 192.605(a) by failing to have a manual
of written procedures and keeping the records necessary to administer its procedures for
conducting operations, maintenance, and emergency activities. The Notice proposed assessing a
civil penalty of $108,800 for the alleged violations and proposed ordering Plains to take certain
measures to correct the same.
On July 28, 2009, Petitioner responded by contesting the allegations in the Notice on legal
grounds.8 Plains argued that the Martinez Pipeline is not a transmission line under the definition
provided in 49 C.F.R. § 192.3 because the line operates at a hoop stress below 20 percent of its
specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), does not transport gas within a storage field or to a
distribution center or storage facility, and does not transport gas to a large volume customer.
On April 14, 2011, I issued the Final Order in this case. Based on the available record at that
time, I agreed that Petitioner’s line does not operate at a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of
SMYS or transport gas within a storage field. However, I did find that it transports gas to a large
volume customer and determined that it therefore met the definition of a transmission line and on
that basis was subject to the Part 192 requirements for transmission lines.9 Plains did not dispute
the allegations in the Notice on any other grounds, and the evidence showed that Petitioner did
not have a manual or keep the records necessary to administer its procedures for conducting
operations, maintenance, and emergency activities for the Martinez Pipeline. Accordingly, I
found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.603(b) and 192.605(a), assessed Plains a civil
penalty of $108,800, and ordered the company to take certain actions to comply with the natural
gas pipeline safety regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 192.10
On September 2, 2011, Plains filed its Petition, contending that the Martinez Pipeline is “not a
gathering line, is not a distribution line, [and] is not a transmission line” and therefore is not
subject to the federal pipeline safety requirements at all.
11 In particular, Plains argues that the
Martinez Pipeline is not a transmission line under § 192.3 because it does not transport gas to a
large volume customer and is downstream from a distribution center.12 Petitioner further argues
that the Martinez Pipeline is a customer-owned service line, making it exempt from the Part 192
8 Petitioner did not request an informal hearing under 49 C.F.R. §§ 190.209-211.
9 Final Order at pp. 1-4.
10 Id. at pp. 4-6.
11 Petition at pp. 13.
12 Id. at pp. 6-11.



4
requirements.
13 In addition, Petitioner contends that because the Martinez Pipeline is an
intrastate pipeline, PHMSA lacks authority to regulate it since the agency has delegated direct
regulatory responsibility over intrastate natural gas pipelines in California to the CPUC, in
accordance with the annual certification process set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60105. Based on these
arguments, Petitioner contends that the Final Order should be vacated in its entirety for lack of
PHMSA jurisdiction and authority over the pipeline.
Standard of Review
A Petitioner is afforded the right to petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a
Final Order. That right, however, does not constitute an appeal or an opportunity to seek a de
novo review of the record. Instead, a Petitioner may present previously unavailable information
or ask for the correction of any errors in a final order. Repetitious information or arguments will
not be considered.14 Section 190.215(b) of the pipeline safety regulations states that “[i]f the
respondent requests the consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must
submit the reasons they were not presented prior to issuance of the final order.”
Plains acknowledges that it is seeking to present additional facts and arguments in its Petition
and Reply, but states that they should be considered on reconsideration for several reasons. First,
Petitioner states that any information relating to PHMSA’s jurisdiction over the Martinez
Pipeline must be admitted because jurisdictional challenges are not subject to waiver and can be
raised at any time in a proceeding. In particular, Plains argues that information obtained just
before it filed its Reply concerning the proper regulatory classification of the line should be
admitted, as it had to be obtained from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), a third-party, and is
directly relevant to the extent of the regulatory authority on which the Final Order was based.
Finally, Petitioner notes that the Director has not objected to the introduction of this additional
information, and had indicated in his Response to the Petition that further information could
impact the appropriate regulatory classification of the Martinez Pipeline.
I agree that the additional facts and arguments presented by Plains should be considered in this
proceeding. Jurisdictional challenges can generally be raised at any point in a proceeding, and
Petitioner’s new information relates to PHMSA’s authority to regulate the Martinez Pipeline.
Moreover, key information regarding the classification of the pipeline supplying the Martinez
Pipeline was not obtained until after the issuance of the Final Order. I am, therefore, considering
the additional arguments, facts, information, and evidence offered by Plains in its Petition and
Reply.
Analysis
I. Regulatory Classification of the Martinez Pipeline
13 Id. at 11-12.
14 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(a)-(e).



5
In its Petition, Plains contends that the Martinez Pipeline is “not a gathering line, is not a
distribution line, [and] is not a transmission line” and therefore is not subject to the Part 192
pipeline safety regulations at all.15 The pipeline regulatory classification system is based on the
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (NGPSA) (P.L. 90-481), codified at 49 U.S.C. 60101 et.
seq., which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to regulate the safe transportation of
natural gas by pipeline. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60101(a)(6), the definition of an “Interstate gas
pipeline facility” is as follows:
Interstate gas pipeline facility means a gas pipeline facility—
(A) used to transport gas; and
(B) subject to the jurisdiction of the [Federal Energy Regulatory] Commission
under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.);
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60101(a)(9), the definition of an “Intrastate gas pipeline facility” is as
follows:
Intrastate gas pipeline facility means a gas pipeline facility and transportation of
gas within a State not subject to the jurisdiction of the [Federal Energy
Regulatory] Commission under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.);
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60101(a)(21), the definition of the phrase “Transporting gas,” in relevant part,
is as follows:
Transporting gas
(A) means the gathering, transmission, or distribution of gas by pipeline, or the
storage of gas, in interstate or foreign commerce; . . . .
Therefore, PHMSA’s safety authority broadly encompasses the entire natural gas pipeline
transportation network, from the gas gathering lines that move natural gas from production-well
areas, to the gas transmission lines that transport natural gas across long distances from
producing areas to consuming areas, to the gas distribution lines that deliver gas to end-users
such as homes and businesses. Thus, PHMSA’s authority under the NGPSA is even broader
than the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Natural Gas Act in
that it includes gas distribution pipelines which are intrastate” pipelines.16
The Secretary of Transportation has delegated the authority to regulate pipeline safety to
PHMSA, which promulgated the implementing regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 192.17 The
definitions of “Distribution line”, “Gathering line”, and “Transmission line” in 49 C.F.R. § 192.3
are as follows:
15 Petition at pp. 13.
16 The term “intrastate pipeline” is used as a label for purposes of designating whether a state having a § 60105
certification will be the primary regulator of the subject line or whether PHMSA will exercise its residual authority
to regulate pipelines that are not regulated by the state.
17 See 49 C.F.R. § 1.53 for the Secretary’s delegation of this authority to the Administrator of PHMSA.



6
Distribution line means a pipeline other than a gathering or transmission line.
Gathering line means a pipeline that transports gas from a current production
facility to a transmission line or main.
Transmission line means a pipeline, other than a gathering line, that: (1)
Transports gas from a gathering line or storage facility to a distribution center,
storage facility, or large volume customer that is not down-stream from a
distribution center; (2) . . .
NOTE: A large volume customer may receive similar volumes of gas as a
distribution center, and includes factories, power plants, and institutional users of
gas.
Under this classification system, every pipeline transporting gas is either a gathering line, a
transmission line, or a distribution line. Therefore, I cannot accept Petitioner’s argument that the
Martinez Pipeline is none of the above. Doing so would create an anomaly that has never existed
in the four decades the pipeline safety regulations have been in effect and would create a gap in
pipeline safety regulation that would run counter to the purpose and intent of the NGPSA.
As noted above, the April 14, 2011 Final Order determined that the Martinez Pipeline is a
transmission line. In its Reply, however, Petitioner provided a key piece of new information.
The PG&E pipeline “upstream” of the Martinez Pipeline, which supplies the gas entering the
Martinez Pipeline, is designated as DFM 3019-02 and is not a transmission line, as was thought
at the time the Final Order was issued. Rather, DFM 3019-02 is actually a distribution
pipeline.18 While intrastate pipeline and/or distribution systems can include both transmission
lines and distribution lines, once gas has entered a distribution line, the smaller diameter, lower
pressure lines branching downstream of that distribution line are generally also considered to be
distribution lines, not transmission lines. While there can be certain exceptions to this in the
case of “looped” distribution systems, in this case we are not dealing with a looped portion of a
distribution system. Therefore, the fact that the Martinez Pipeline is downstream of a
distribution pipeline means that the Martinez Pipeline is a distribution pipeline as well. This also
makes the arguments concerning whether the Martinez Pipeline transports gas to a large volume
customer and any other arguments concerning the definition of a transmission line moot.
This brings us to Petitioner’s alternative argument, as presented in its Reply, that the Martinez
Pipeline is not regulated under Part 192 because it is a “customer owned service line.”19 A
service line is defined in § 192.3 as follows:
Service line means a distribution line that transports gas from a common
source of supply to an individual customer, to two adjacent or adjoining
residential or small commercial customers, or to multiple residential or small
18 E-mail from Frank Eich, Sr. Account Manager, PG&E to Jordan R. Janek, Senior Director, Environmental &
Regulatory Compliance, Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., dated January 2, 2012 (Plains Reply, Exhibit C). DFM
3019-02 is downstream of a PG&E transmission pipeline designated as “StandPac-3.”
19 Reply at pp. 41-45.



7
commercial customers served through a meter header or manifold. A service
line ends at the outlet of the customer meter or at the connection to a
customer's piping, whichever is further downstream, or at the connection to
customer piping if there is no meter.
Service lines, therefore, are a subset of distribution lines. To say that a distribution line such as
the Martinez Pipeline is a service line does not necessarily mean it is unregulated.20 The term
“customer owned” service line is typically used to refer to a service line owned by the customer
that is downstream of the meter or other point where the pipeline company’s operator status
ends. Typically, such a line is located entirely on the grounds of the customer’s property, such as
when the meter is located at the edge of the customer’s property, as opposed to being located at
the wall of the home or building being supplied. The fact that transportation has ended is the
basis for the absence of regulation on a customer-owned service line located entirely on a
21
customer’s property.
However, if the line is not located entirely on the customer’s own property but transports gas
across property owned by others, across public lands, under roadways, and over other areas
accessible to the public, then the “customer” is actually engaged in pipeline transportation itself.
In this case, Petitioner is both the operator of the Martinez pipeline and the ultimate consumer of
the gas being transported. The fact that the Martinez Pipeline is not located entirely on
Petitioner’s property and extends approximately one mile across areas open and accessible to the
public means that the line is still subject to the jurisdiction of the NGPSA. Simply put, Petitioner
is using the Martinez Pipeline to transport gas.22
In summary, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the Martinez Pipeline is a
distribution pipeline. Accordingly, I find on reconsideration that the factual determination made
in the July 8, 2011 Final Order that the Martinez Pipeline was a transmission pipeline was
erroneous. I also find, however, that the transportation of gas through the Martinez Pipeline by
Petitioner is subject to the pipeline safety regulations for distribution lines and that the Martinez
Pipeline is not exempt from regulation, regardless of whether or not Petitioner labels it as a
customer owned service line.
II. Effect of the CPUC’s § 60105 Certification on PHMSA’s Authority to Regulate
the Martinez Pipeline.
20 See 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.361−192.381.
21 In some cases, the pipeline operator maintains customer-owned service lines. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60113,
operators of gas pipelines supplying customer owned service lines are obligated to provide hazard notifications and
safety assistance.
22 In its Petition, Plains refers to a February 13, 1996 PHMSA interpretation letter that designates a gas line fueling
the lighting for a planned community’s entrance as a customer owned service line that was not entirely confined to
private property. This interpretation, however, does not indicate if the line crossed public property. Although the
exact facts were not discussed in the interpretation, the line appears to have been very short and on private property,
with an easement to the homeowners association. In contrast, the Martinez Pipeline is approximately a mile in
length and crosses a major highway, toll areas, and a railroad, creating a different safety risk than a short line from a
customer’s property line to a building. See also 60 Fed. Reg. 41821 discussing customer owned service lines.



8
In its Petition and Reply, Plains further argues that PHMSA is precluded from regulating the
Martinez Pipeline because “PHMSA has ceded jurisdiction over the Subject Line…to the
CPUC.”23 Petitioner bases its argument on the CPUC’s annual certification under
49 U.S.C. § 60105 that, with certain exceptions not relevant here, authorizes the CPUC to
regulate intrastate natural gas pipelines in California. Respondent points to the language of §
60105(a) stating that “…the Secretary of Transportation may not prescribe or enforce safety
standards and practices for an intrastate pipeline facility or intrastate pipeline transportation to
the extent that the safety standards and practices are regulated by a State authority . . . that
submits [an annual certification] to the Secretary.”
In his Response, the Director points out that the prohibition in § 60105(a) only applies to the
extent that the safety standards and practices for an intrastate gas pipeline facility are regulated
by a state authority. The Director, who works in close partnership with the CPUC, states that the
CPUC does not have the authority to regulate the Martinez Pipeline or Plains, because the CPUC
has determined that neither meets the definition of a “public utility” or “gas corporation” in Cal.
Pub. Util. §§ 216 and 222. In the absence of regulation of the Martinez Pipeline by the CPUC,
the Director maintains that PHMSA is not prohibited by § 60105(a) from prescribing and
enforcing the safety standards and practices for the operation of the Martinez Pipeline.
While the NGPSA establishes broad federal regulation of the entire natural gas pipeline
transportation system, Petitioner is correct that the federal pipeline safety laws included a role for
the states in regulating the intrastate pipelines within their borders through authority derived
from the § 60105 certification process. PHMSA’s policy is to encourage each state to take
responsibility for as much of the intrastate pipeline transportation within its borders as possible
and federally funds these state pipeline safety programs. PHMSA works in close partnership
with the state programs, provides training to state pipeline inspectors, and periodically evaluates
the effectiveness of the state programs in regulating their intrastate pipelines. If PHMSA
determines that a state pipeline safety program is inadequate, PHMSA can revoke its
certification, in which case responsibility for regulating the intrastate pipelines in that state
reverts back to PHMSA. Therefore, PHMSA has residual authority to directly regulate intrastate
pipelines when a state is not doing so.24
With respect to the prohibition in § 60105(a), we first look to the plain language of the statute
and the presumption that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what
it says.25 In that regard, the plain language of the prohibition in § 60105(a) only applies “to the
extent” that the safety standards and practices for an intrastate gas pipeline facility “are
regulated” by a state authority. Consistent with the purpose and federal-state structure
established by the NGPSA, this prohibits PHMSA from overlapping with state regulatory
activity but ensures that PHMSA has a residual “backstop” authority where, for whatever reason,
23 Reply at pp. 17.
24 See 49 U.S.C. § 60105(f).
25 Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002); Conn. Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-
254 (1992).



9
a state ends up regulating something less than all of the intrastate pipelines within that state.
Petitioner’s argument amounts to the proposition that in those instances where a state is not
regulating a given type of intrastate pipeline, then such a line is not regulated at all.
I cannot accept this argument. If PHMSA did not have residual authority in instances where
certain types of intrastate pipelines were not being regulated by a state, it would open up gaps in
pipeline safety regulation, frustrate the purposes of the NGPSA, and put the public at risk.26 In
the absence of the exercise of federal authority, the Martinez Pipeline would not be subject to
any regulatory authority for pipeline safety purposes.
Petitioner has not disputed the Director’s assertion that the CPUC does not have the authority to
regulate the Martinez Pipeline under Cal. Pub. Util. §§ 216 and 222 and is not regulating it. For
the reasons discussed above, I find that § 60105(a) does not prohibit PHMSA from enforcing the
Part 192 regulations on the Martinez Pipeline.
RELIEF GRANTED
Based on a review of the record and for the reasons stated above, the factual determination made
in the July 8, 2011 Final Order that the Martinez Pipeline was a transmission pipeline is vacated
and the classification for the Martinez Pipeline is corrected to be that of a distribution pipeline.
RELIEF DENIED
Based on a review of the record and for the reasons stated above, the Petition is denied insofar as
it requests that the findings of violation, civil penalties, and compliance order in the Final Order
be vacated for lack of PHMSA jurisdiction and authority over the Martinez Pipeline. I further
find that facts and evidence of record support the civil penalty assessed in the Final Order. 27
Service of this Decision terminates the stay of the Final Order granted on November 6, 2011.
This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
_____________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
26 Many events can change the designation of a pipeline from interstate to intrastate or otherwise affect its
regulatory status, including construction of a line that interconnects two pipelines or even a preemption decision by
a federal court finding that a pipeline facility formerly designated as intrastate is actually interstate. Nothing in the
NGPSA, however, suggests that such events would result in a pipeline being completely unregulated until such time
as a state certification could be modified.
27 The Final Order violations involved code sections that apply to both transmission and distribution pipelines.

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520090018>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `a388d97c52208212336d4374b81397049707d02cebadae288fffe7f6ddf3cf24`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-24T21:02:08.068Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-520090018`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "520090018",
  "operator": "Plains Products Terminals LLC",
  "region": "Western",
  "pipelineType": "GAS INTRASTATE ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "192.603(b)",
    "192.605(a)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 8,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "520090018_closure letter_02122015.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_closure%20letter_02122015.pdf",
      "bytes": 29190,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520090018_closure letter_02122015_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_closure%20letter_02122015_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 4726,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520090018_Decision on Reconsideration_08302013.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_08302013.pdf",
      "bytes": 667330,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520090018_Decision on Reconsideration_08302013_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_Decision%20on%20Reconsideration_08302013_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 69666,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520090018_FinalOrder_07082011.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_FinalOrder_07082011.pdf",
      "bytes": 470039,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520090018_FinalOrder_07082011_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_FinalOrder_07082011_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 42455,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520090018_NOPV PCP PCO_06262009.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06262009.pdf",
      "bytes": 462625,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520090018_NOPV PCP PCO_06262009_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520090018/520090018_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_06262009_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 21736,
      "category": "agency_document"
    }
  ],
  "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": "Plains Products Terminals LLC"
}
```