{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120071013","title":"VALERO NATURAL GAS PIPELINE — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2007-11-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(b), 192.705(b), 192.745(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120071013","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120071013","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving VALERO NATURAL GAS PIPELINE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.465(b),  192.705(b),  192.745(a). The case was opened on 2007-11-07 and is reported as closed as of 2011-01-19. Proposed civil penalty: $42,000. Assessed civil penalty: $42,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120071013_Final Order_12302010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071013/120071013_Final%20Order_12302010.pdf\n\n120071013_Final Order_12302010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071013/120071013_Final%20Order_12302010_text.pdf\n\n120071013_NOPV PCP_11072007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071013/120071013_NOPV%20PCP_11072007.pdf\n\n120071013_nopv pcp_11072007_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071013/120071013_nopv%20pcp_11072007_text.pdf\n\n120071013_Operator Response to Notice and Operator Brief in Lieu of In-person Hearing_06252009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120071013/120071013_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Operator%20Brief%20in%20Lieu%20of%20In-person%20Hearing_06252009.pdf\n\n120071013_Final Order_12302010_text.pdf\n\nDEC 30 2010\nMr. Rodney L. Reese\nVice President\nValero Natural Gas Pipeline Company\nOne Valero Way\nSan Antonio, TX 78249-1112\nRe: CPF No. 1-2007-1013\nDear Mr. Reese:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $42,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, PHMSA\nAndrew J. Dalton, Counsel\nValero Services, Inc.\nRoom F2-160\nOne Valero Way\nSan Antonio, Texas 78249-1112\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0039 9945]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nValero Natural Gas Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 1-2007-1013\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring the week of May 29, 2007, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Valero\nNatural Gas Pipeline Company (Valero or Respondent) in Paulsboro, New Jersey. Respondent’s\n2.7-mile natural gas pipeline runs from the Philadelphia Airport, under the Delaware River, to a\nrefinery on the New Jersey side of the river.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated November 7, 2007, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Valero had\nviolated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.465, 192.705, and 192.745 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$42,000 for the alleged violations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated January 18, 2008 (Response). Respondent\nstated that it would present evidence at hearing to establish that the alleged missed inspections\nand maintenance actually occurred. Respondent further stated that it would “raise issues\nconcerning the reasonableness of the penalty,” and requested a hearing. By letter dated May 21,\n2009, however, Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing and asked for the right to submit a\nBrief in Lieu of In-Person Hearing (Brief). Respondent submitted its Brief on June 25, 2009.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192 as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.465 External corrosion control: Monitoring.\n(a) ….\n(b) Each cathodic protection rectifier or other impressed current\npower source must be inspected six times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2½ months, to insure that it is operating.\nThe Notice alleged that Valero violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) by failing to inspect a certain\nrectifier adjacent to the Valero Paulsboro Refinery at least six times each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 2½ months, to insure that it was operating. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Valero only inspected the rectifier five times during 2006, instead of the required six\ntimes. Also, the Notice alleged that the inspection interval exceeded 2½ months on two\noccasions: (1) September 6, 2006 – January 3, 2007 (three months, 28 days); and (2) January 3,\n2007 - April 9, 2007 (three months, six days).\nIn its Response, Valero stated that it would present evidence at the hearing showing that it had\nperformed inspections at the required frequency. However, Respondent withdrew its request for a\nhearing and subsequently stated in its Brief that it did not contest the above-cited alleged\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b) on two occasions by permitting more than 2½ months to pass\nbetween inspections of the rectifier located adjacent to Valero Paulsboro Refinery in Paulsboro,\nNew Jersey.\nviolation.1 Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b), which states:\n§ 192.705 Transmission Lines: Patrolling.\n(a) ….\n(b) The frequency of patrols is determined by the size of the line, the\noperating pressures, the class location, terrain, weather, and other relevant\nfactors, but intervals between patrols may not be longer than prescribed in\nthe following table:\nClass location\nof the line\nAt highway and railroad\ncrossings\nAt all other places\n1, 2 7½ months; but at least twice\neach calendar year\n15 months; but at least\nonce each calendar year\n3 4½ months; but at least four\ntimes each calendar year\n7½ months; but at least\ntwice each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) by failing to conduct patrols\nof its pipeline at one particular railroad crossing in a Class 3 location within the required interval\nof 4½ months, but at least four times each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at\nthe location where Respondent’s pipeline intersected with a railroad crossing near the\nPhiladelphia Airport, Respondent performed only two patrols in 2005 and three patrols in 2006,\nthe last being on October 11, 2006. The only patrol that had occurred in 2007 as of the May 29,\n1 Brief, at 1.\n\n\n\n3\n2007 OPS inspection occurred was May 1, 2007. Therefore, according to the Notice, over 5½\nmonths had passed between the last two pipeline/railroad crossing patrols.\nIn its Response, Valero stated that it would show at the hearing that this particular section of\npipeline near the Philadelphia Airport was not in a Class 3 but a Class 2 location and that the\nrequired patrol frequency was twice a year, with inspection intervals not to exceed 7½ months.\nRespondent also stated that it would show that it had completed six patrols of its pipeline at this\nlocation during 2006. However, Respondent subsequently withdrew its request for hearing and\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(b) on\nfour occasions by permitting more than 4½ months to pass between inspections of its gas\ntransmission pipeline where it intersected a railroad crossing near the Philadelphia Airport.\nstated in its Brief that it was not contesting the above-cited alleged violations.2 Accordingly, based\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.475(a), which states:\n§ 192.745 Valve Maintenance: Transmission Lines\n(a) Each transmission line valve that might be required during any\nemergency must be inspected and partially operated at intervals not\nexceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a) by failing to inspect and\npartially operate two transmission line valves that might be required during an emergency, at\nmaintenance intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year. Specifically,\nit alleged that Valero failed to perform valve maintenance on valves 2A and 2B, adjacent to the\nValero Paulsboro Refinery, during calendar year 2006.\nIn its Response, Valero stated that it would provide evidence at the hearing to show that the\nrequired annual maintenance was performed in September 2006. However, Respondent\nsubsequently withdrew its request for hearing and stated in its Brief that it was not contesting the\nabove-cited alleged violations. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F. R. § 192.745(a) when it failed to perform required annual\nmaintenance on valves 2A and 2B.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122\nand 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and\ngravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s\n2 Brief, at 1.\n\n\n\n4\nculpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty\nand any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good\nfaith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I\nmay consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $42,000 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465(b), for failing to inspect a certain rectifier at the appropriate intervals. In its Brief,\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violation but did challenge the amount of the civil penalty\nproposed in the Notice.\nValero argues that the $14,000 civil penalty proposed for this violation is “clearly excessive in\nlight of the agencies (sic) prior decisions” and that “it would be arbitrary and capricious for\nPHMSA to assess the proposed $14,000 penalty.” Respondent cites several PHMSA final orders\nfrom prior years that assessed civil penalties for violations of this same 49 C.F.R. § 192.465(b).\nThe following table summarizes the cited cases, including the instant case:\nOperator and CPF Duration(s) of\nViolation\nNumber of\nInstances\nProposed Civil\nPenalty\nPacific Operators\nOffshore\n5-2004-2002\n2/10/2000 –\n3/10/2000\n1 $1,000\nVenoco Inc.\n5-2002-0008\n11/16/1998 –\n9/25/2001\n1 $3,000\nCity of Danville\n1-2002-0004\n8/21/2000 -\n12/4/2000 (inspected\nbut not recorded)\n1 0\nQuestar Pipeline\nCompany\n5-2003-1010\n10/18/01 – 9/24/02 1 $5,000\nValero Energy\nCorporation\n1-2007-1013\n11/22/06 – 1/3/07\nAND 3/19/07 –\n4/9/07\n2 $14,000\nRespondent is correct that the above-listed enforcement actions resulted in varying civil penalties\nand that the proposed civil penalty in the instant case is the highest of those listed. However, this\ndoes not indicate that the proposed civil penalty is either excessive or improper.\nAlthough the cases that Respondent cites all contain findings of violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.465(b), the facts surrounding each violation differ. First, the violations occurred at different\ntimes. Respondent’s violations of § 192.465(b) began at least five years after the ones cited in the\nother cases. In the most recent of the earlier cases, Questar Pipeline was assessed a civil penalty of\n$5,000 for its violation of § 192.465(b); further, Pacific Operators Offshore was assessed a $1,000\ncivil penalty for violation of § 192.465(b) two-and-a-half years earlier. Although the civil\n\n\n\n5\npenalties assessed in these cases have varied in amount, they show a consistent upward trend in\ncivil penalties assessed. This trend is informed by a growing body of information about the\ndangers of external corrosion and the need to encourage compliance with Part 192.\nIn addition, the cited violations differ in the length and number of violation. Respondent’s\nviolation of § 192.465(b) is unique in that Valero came into compliance after a period of non-\ncompliance and then immediately again exceeded the required inspection interval in the following\ncycle.\nIt is widely recognized that administrative agencies have wide latitude in enforcing the statutes that\nCongress has entrusted to them. As the Supreme Court stated in 1973, “The employment of a\nsanction within the authority of an administrative agency is…. not rendered invalid in a particular\ncase because it is more severe than sanctions imposed in other cases.”3 In the absence of statutory\nlanguage mandating “uniformity of sanctions for similar violations,” agencies are free to assess\npenalties in a manner that “best serves to deter violations and achieve the objectives of that\nstatute.”4 The Pipeline Safety Law (PSL) lists the factors that the Secretary “shall” and “may”\nconsider in assessing civil penalties. Nowhere in the statute or in 49 C.F.R. Part 190 is there any\nprovision requiring that the Secretary consider civil penalties assessed in other cases for similar\nviolations in calculating a proposed penalty.5\nRespondent’s contention that it would be “arbitrary and capricious” for PHMSA to assess the\nproposed $14,000 for this violation suggests, but does not explicitly state, an argument based upon\nrequirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA states that courts will set\naside agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in\naccordance with the law.”6 The courts have interpreted the term “arbitrary and capricious” under\npenalties have been set aside for such reasons, courts have been reluctant to set aside disparate\nremedies just because they vary in size or because different remedies are selected.\nthe APA to mean “unwarranted in law or without justification in fact.”7 While administrative\nIn Butz, the court declined to overturn the Department of Agriculture’s suspension of a stockyard\noperator’s registration as being overly harsh, noting that Congress had plainly intended to give the\nSecretary broad discretion in fashioning appropriate remedies. “Therefore, mere unevenness in the\napplication of the sanction does not render its application in a particular case ‘unwarranted in\n3 Butz v. Glover Livestock Commission Company, Inc., 411 U.S. 182, 187 (1973).\n4 Id.\n5 49 U.S.C. § 60122(b) states: “Penalty considerations.--In determining the amount of a civil penalty under this\nsection--(1) the Secretary shall consider-- (A) the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse\nimpact on the environment; (B) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior violations,\nthe ability to pay, and any effect on ability to continue doing business; and (C) good faith in attempting to comply; and\n(2) the Secretary may consider-- (A) the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages; and (B) other matters that justice requires.”\n6 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).\n7 Cross v. United States, 512 F.2d 1212, 1218 (5th Cir. 1975).\n\n\n\n6\nlaw.’”8 Once the fact of a violation had been properly established, “the views of the Secretary as\nto the appropriate sanction in a given case of violation are entitled to very great, if not conclusive,\nweight.”9\nIn its Brief, Respondent cited two Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) cases to\nsupport its contention that PHMSA’s imposition of the proposed penalty here would be arbitrary\nand capricious.10 However, those cases are inapposite because the CFTC had a policy that\nexplicitly required the Commission to review and consider penalties imposed in other cases as part\nfound that the Commission had improperly excluded evidence from the record, and the civil\npenalty issued was $2.745 million, whereas the next highest civil penalty ever assessed by the\npenalty because the CFTC had not appropriately construed the facts relied upon in assessing a\nof its assessment of civil penalties.11 Furthermore, in R& W Technical Services v. CFTC, the court\nCommission had been less than $100,000. In Monieson v. CFTC, the court similarly reduced the\n$500,000 penalty.\nIn this case, Respondent did not dispute PHMSA’s allegations of violation and has not alleged that\nPHMSA violated its own procedures or policies in proposing the penalty. Given that the\ncompany’s failure to monitor rectifier operability could result in accelerated corrosion and pose a\npublic safety hazard, I find that the proposed civil penalty is not arbitrary and capricious.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $14,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §192.465(b).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.705, for failing to patrol its pipeline at the intersection of a railroad crossing a minimum of\nfour times per calendar, with a maximum interval between patrols of 4½ months. In its Brief,\nRespondent did not contest the violation or the proposed penalty of $14,000. Respondent’s failure\nto conduct patrols could have allowed undiscovered excavation activity or equipment problems to\npersist, threatening the pipeline’s safety in a Class 3 location. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $14,000 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.705.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.745(a), for failing to test valves 2A and 2B during 2006. In its Brief, Respondent did not\ncontest the alleged violation but did challenge the civil penalty proposed in the Notice.\n8 Butz, 411 U.S. at 188.\n9 Cross, 512 F.2d at 1218.\n10 R & W Technical Services LTD v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 205 F.3d 165, 177 (5th Cir. 2000);\nMonieson V. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, 996 F.2d 852 (7th Cir. 1993).\n11 R & W Technical Services LTD v. CFTC, 205 F.3d at 177; Monieson v. CFT C, 996 F.2d at 862, 863. The court, in\nMonieson, noted that the CFTC itself had enumerated a number of factors to be considered in arriving at a specific\nsanction or at a combination of sanctions. These factors included “a review of the sanctions imposed in the past for\nsimilar violations” (quoting In the Matter of The Siegel Trading Co. [1977-1980 Transfer Binder] Comm.Fut.L.Rep.\n(CCH) ¶ 20,452 at 21,847 (CFTC July 26, 1977). No equivalent PHMSA policy exists to consider or weigh the\npenalties imposed in other cases.\n\n\n\n7\nAs in Item 1, Valero argues that the $14,000 civil penalty proposed for this violation is \"clearly\nexcessive\" in comparison to penalties assessed in past cases involving violations of the same\nregulation. Respondent argues that \"it would be arbitrary and capricious for PHMSA to assess the\nproposed $14,000 penalty \" Respondent cited several PHMSA final orders from prior years that\nassessed penalties for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a). Respondent calculated the \"per valve\"\nin each case, based on the amount assessed for the violation and the number of missed tests.\nRespondent cited the following cases, with \"per valve\" amounts:\nOperator and CPF\nYears of\n\"Per Valve\"\nTotal Civil Penalty for\nNo.\nViolation\nCalculation\nviolation of\n§192.745(a)\nAN Pipeline\n2001-2001\n$277.78\n2-2004-1004\nCompany\n$5,000\nTrunkline Gas\n2000-2002\n$413.33\n$31,000\nCompany\n4-2004-1001\nCenterPoint Energy\n2001-2004\n$520.59\nGas Transmission\n$88,500\n4-2005-1008\nCompany\nAlthough not cited in Respondent's Brief, the following table reflects all other recent (violations\noccurring during or after 2000) violations of § 192.745(a) in which a penalty was assessed,\nincluding the instant case:\nOperator and CPF\nYears of\n\"Per Valve\"\nTotal Civil Penalty for\nviolation\nCalculation\nViolation of §192.745(a)\nNatural Gas Pipeline\n2002-2003\n$527.78\nCompany of\n$9,500\nAmerica, a subsidiary\nof Kinder Morgan,\nInc.\n4-2005-1012\nDominion\n2000-2003\n$1,363.63\n$15,000\nTransmission, Inc.\n1-2004-1005\nPacific Operators\n2003-2004\nOffshore\n$5,000\n$10,000\n5-2007-0003\nValero Natural Gas\n2006\nPipeline Company\n$7,000\n$14,000\n1-2007-1013\n\n\n\n8\nRespondent is correct that the listed cases show a wide range of civil penalties assessed for general\nviolation of the § 192.745(a) when considered on a “per valve” basis. The cases suggest an\nupward trend in civil penalties assessed, but such a trend simply reflects an appropriate matter of\nagency discretion and is informed by the critical role of valves in emergencies and the need for\nthem to function properly in the event of a release. There is nothing suspect or irrational about\nsuch a trend.\nAs stated above, the APA and case law interpreting it establish that once a proper agency\ndetermination has been made that a violation of law has occurred, an agency has broad discretion\nto assess a civil penalty that will achieve the objectives of the statute. Neither Congress nor this\nagency has required or recommended that PHMSA assess penalties that match those assessed in\nthe past. Given the critical role valves play in the event of an emergency, Respondent’s failure to\ntest valves 2A and 2B is a serious violation that could jeopardize public safety. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $14,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.745(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $42,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed\nto: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $42,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is\nnot made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in\nreferral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United\nStates.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety,\nPHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a\ncopy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept\npetitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by the\nRespondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements\nof 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil\npenalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including any required\ncorrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes\nthe final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\n\n\n\n9\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":24786}