{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120135021","title":"SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2013-09-30","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.446(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135021.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135021.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120135021","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120135021","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.446(a). The case was opened on 2013-09-30 and is reported as closed as of 2016-12-08. Proposed civil penalty: $30,200. Assessed civil penalty: $25,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120135021_Final Order_12022016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135021/120135021_Final%20Order_12022016.pdf\n\n120135021_Final Order_12022016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135021/120135021_Final%20Order_12022016_text.pdf\n\n120135021_NOPV PCP PCO_09302013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135021/120135021_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09302013.pdf\n\n120135021_NOPV PCP PCO_09302013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135021/120135021_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_09302013_text.pdf\n\n120135021__Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing_10312013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120135021/120135021__Operator_Response_and_Request_for_Hearing_10312013.pdf\n\n120135021_NOPV PCP PCO_09302013_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103\nWest Trenton, NJ 08628\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nSeptember 30, 2013\nDavid Chalson\nVice President, Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n4041 Market Street\nAston, PA 19014\nCPF 1-2013-5021\nDear Mr. Chalson:\nFrom December 7 - 9, 2011, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode inspected Sunoco Pipeline L.P.’s (Sunoco) control room management procedures titled Sunoco\nPipeline L.P. & Affiliates Control Room Management Manual, in Montello, Pennsylvania.1 These\nprocedures apply to Operator Identification (OPID) 18718 Sunoco Pipeline LP – Eastern area and Magtex\nSystem and OPID 07063 Harbor Pipeline.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed a probable violation of the Pipeline\nSafety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The item inspected and the probable violation\nis:\n1 The deadlines for pipeline operators to implement certain control room management procedures are prescribed\nin§195.446(a). At the time of this inspection, pipeline operators had to have implemented most procedures.\nImplementation of all related requirements was due no later than August 1, 2012.\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5021\n1. §195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a controller\nworking in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a pipeline facility\nthrough a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow written control room\nmanagement procedures that implement the requirements of this section. The procedures\nrequired by this section must be integrated, as appropriate, with the operator's written\nprocedures required by § 195.402. An operator must develop the procedures no later than\nAugust 1, 2011, and must implement the procedures according to the following schedule.\nThe procedures required by paragraphs (b), (c)(5), (d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this\nsection must be implemented no later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by\nparagraphs (c)(1) through (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no later than\nAugust 1, 2012. The training procedures required by paragraph (h) must be implemented\nno later than August 1, 2012, except that any training required by another paragraph of\nthis section must be implemented no later than the deadline for that paragraph.\nThe Sunoco Pipeline L.P. & Affiliates Control Room Management Manual that was issued on October 1,\n2011, updated on November 15, 2011, failed to have a detailed written process on how training scenarios\nfor recognizing and responding to abnormal operating conditions that are likely to occur simultaneously\nor in sequence are determined, in accordance with §195.446(h)(1). Specifically, the CRM Training Rule\nprocedure did not address reviewing historical alarm logs to identify candidate scenarios for training.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per\nviolation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nFor violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per\nviolation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the\nabove probable violation and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of\n$30,200 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n1 $30,200\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 1 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sunoco. Please refer to the Proposed\nCompliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any\nportion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with\nthe complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you\nbelieve qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30\ndays of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this\nNotice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this\nNotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.120135021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09302013 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5021\nPlease submit all correspondence in this matter to Byron Coy, PE, Director, PHMSA Eastern Region, 820\nBear Tavern Road, Suite 103, W. Trenton, NJ 08628. Please refer to CPF 1-2013-5021 on each\ndocument you submit, and please whenever possible provide a signed PDF copy in electronic format.\nSmaller files may be emailed to Byron.Coy@dot.gov. Larger files should be sent on a CD accompanied\nby the original paper copy to the Eastern Region Office.\nSincerely,\nByron Coy, PE\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n120135021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09302013 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\nCPF 1-2013-5021\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (Sunoco) a Compliance Order incorporating the\nfollowing remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Sunoco with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. With respect to Item Number 1 of the Notice, Sunoco must amend its Control Room\nManagement Manual to include a detailed written process for reviewing historical alarm logs\nto identify training scenarios, in accordance with §195.446(h)(1). Sunoco must submit its\namended procedure to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.\n2. It is requested (not mandated) that Sunoco maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to\nByron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost\nassociated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total\ncost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n120135021_NOPV_PCP_PCO_09302013 Page 4 of 4\n\n120135021_Final Order_12022016_text.pdf\n\nDecember 2, 2016\nMr. Michael J. Hennigan\nPresident & CEO\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n1801 Market Street\nSuite 1500\nPhiladelphia, PA 19103\nRe: CPF No. 1-2013-5021\nDear Mr. Hennigan:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $25,900, and finds that Sunoco Pipeline L.P. has\ncompleted the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nThe penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective\nas provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Kevin Dunleavy, Chief Counsel, Sunoco Pipeline L.P.\n3801 West Chester Pike, Newtown Square, PA 19073\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n___________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSunoco Pipeline L.P., ) CPF No. 1-2013-5021\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nOn December 7-9, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an inspection of the control room management procedures of Sunoco Pipeline L.P.\n(Sunoco or Respondent) in Montello, Pennsylvania.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to\nRespondent on September 30, 2013. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged\nthat Sunoco committed a single violation of the control room management regulations and\nproposed a civil penalty of $30,200. The Notice also proposed corrective action to remediate the\nalleged violation.\nSunoco responded to the Notice and requested a hearing by letter dated October 31, 2013.\nRespondent submitted written exhibits on May 8, 2014. In accordance with § 190.211, a hearing\nwas held on May 22, 2014, in Trenton, New Jersey, before a Presiding Official from the Office\nof Chief Counsel, PHMSA. After the hearing, Respondent submitted a post-hearing brief on\nJune 23, 2014 (Brief). Pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director submitted a written evaluation\nof Respondent’s response material on September 30, 2015.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a), which states:\n1 Sunoco is a subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. and operates approximately 6,000 miles of\npipeline transporting primarily crude oil and refined products in Texas, Oklahoma, and several other\nstates. This information is reported by Sunoco for calendar year 2015 pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.49.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-5021\nPage 2\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility\nwith a controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or\npart of a pipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must\nhave and follow written control room management procedures that\nimplement the requirements of this section. The procedures required by this\nsection must be integrated, as appropriate, with the operator’s written\nprocedures required by § 195.402. An operator must develop the procedures\nno later than August 1, 2011, and must implement the procedures according\nto the following schedule. The procedures required by paragraphs (b),\n(c)(5), (d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section must be implemented no\nlater than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by paragraphs (c)(1)\nthrough (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no later than August\n1, 2012. The training procedures required by paragraph (h) must be\nimplemented no later than August 1, 2012, except that any training required\nby another paragraph of this section must be implemented no later than the\ndeadline for that paragraph . . . .\n(h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training program\nand review the training program content to identify potential improvements\nat least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.\nAn operator’s program must provide for training each controller to carry out\nthe roles and responsibilities defined by the operator. In addition, the\ntraining program must include the following elements:\n(1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur\nsimultaneously or in sequence . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.446(a) by failing to have control room\nmanagement procedures for implementing the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of that section\nrelated to controller training. Paragraph (h)(1) requires an operator to have procedures for\ntraining controllers on responding to abnormal operating conditions (AOCs) “likely to occur\nsimultaneously or in sequences.” The Notice alleged that Respondent’s procedures did not have\na detailed written process for how Respondent would determine training scenarios for\nrecognizing and responding to AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged the procedures did not address reviewing historical alarm logs to\nidentify candidate scenarios for training.\nRespondent argued that even though its written procedures did not contain the words\n“simultaneously or in sequence,” the Company’s actual training program trains controllers to\nrecognize and respond to AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence, and in fact,\nRespondent uses historical alarm logs. Moreover, Respondent argued that although the\nregulation requires an operator to have a training program, the regulation does not require an\noperator to have written procedures for the training program. Finally, Respondent argued OPS is\nimpermissibly attempting to enforce a guidance document that merely recommends, but does not\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-5021\nPage 3\nrequire, operators to review historical alarm logs to identify candidate scenarios for AOC\ntraining.\nAnalysis\nSection 195.446(a) requires a pipeline operator to have written control room management\nprocedures. At a minimum, the procedures must implement the requirements of § 195.446,\nincluding § 195.446(h), which requires an operator to have a training program for controllers.\nEach operator must therefore have written procedures that implement its controller training\nprogram. The procedures for the training program must include, among other things, training\ncontrollers on responding to AOCs “likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence” as stated in\n§ 195.446(h)(1).\nI have reviewed the record to determine whether Respondent had written procedures for training\ncontrollers to respond to AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. In the record is\nRespondent’s manual of written control room management procedures.2 Section H of the\nmanual is titled “CRM Training Rule.” This section documents Respondent’s procedures for\ntraining controllers. Both OPS and Respondent submitted for the record copies of Section H\nwith various passages highlighted that are relevant to AOCs.\nOPS highlighted provisions in Section H that reference the class (or module) number for training\ncontrollers on “Control Center Abnormal Operating Conditions.”3 Also, there is a provision that\nreferences initial training for controllers on a number of subjects, including “Abnormal\nOperating Conditions.”4 OPS highlighted a provision concerning tests for console qualification,\nincluding a “Written AOC Test” and a skill demonstration test that includes “3 random\nAOC/Emergency scenarios and how to react.”5\nRespondent highlighted those plus a few additional provisions. Respondent pointed to a\nprocedure that references a computer based “AOC Exam” that “Covers Abnormal Operating\nConditions.”6 The initial testing procedure references computer based training on topics\nincluding “Dispatching; Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency Procedures.”7 Finally, Respondent\nhighlighted a provision on refresher training that references desktop drills “related to recognition\nof and response to AOC/Emergency situations.”8\n2 OPS Violation Report, Exhibit A-1; Respondent Prehearing Submission, Exhibit 5. The procedures\nwere issued October 1, 2011. Despite issuance after the regulatory deadline of August 1, 2011, the Notice\ndid not allege any violation with regard to Respondent exceeding the deadline.\n3 OPS Violation Report, Ex. A-1, Sec. II.B.2.\n4 OPS Violation Report, Ex. A-1, Sec. III.C.24.\n5 OPS Violation Report, Ex. A-1, Sec. IV.E.\n6 Respondent Prehearing Submission, Ex. 5, Sec. II.C.2.\n7 Respondent Prehearing Submission, Ex. 5, Sec. III.D.3.\n8 Respondent Prehearing Submission, Ex. 5, Sec. VI.C.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-5021\nPage 4\nAll of the procedures highlighted by OPS and Respondent in Section H reference training of\ncontrollers on AOCs, but none of them include any provisions for training controllers on\nrecognizing and responding to AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. The\nprocedures only discuss training controllers about AOCs generally, not training on the possibility\nof multiple AOCs occurring at the same time or immediately following one another.\nRespondent argued that even though it might not be detailed in its procedures, the Company\nactually trains controllers on AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence. Respondent\nargued the regulation only requires the operator to have a training “program” and does not\notherwise require written procedures for the program. I disagree. Section 195.446(a) requires a\npipeline operator to have written procedures that implement the requirements in § 195.446(h) for\na training program. Accordingly, Respondent’s written procedures must provide for the\nimplementation of a controller training program that includes training controllers on responding\nto AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence pursuant to § 195.446(h)(1). To the\nextent Respondent actually trained controllers on AOCs likely to occur simultaneously or in\nsequence, it does not demonstrate compliance with the requirement to have written procedures.\nRespondent argued that OPS alleged a violation in this case solely because the words\n“simultaneously or in sequence” are missing from its written procedures. I disagree. The\nabsence of verbatim regulatory text in Respondent’s procedures is not the basis for the\nallegation. The basis is the evidence that Respondent did not have written procedures that met\nthe requirements of §§ 195.446(a) and (h)(1).\nRespondent also argued that OPS is attempting to enforce guidance that merely recommends, but\ndoes not require that operators review historical alarm logs to identify candidate scenarios for\ntraining. The guidance in question is a set of inspection questions, or protocols, that OPS has\nmade publically available and that the Agency uses to conduct control room management safety\ninspections. The protocol regarding controller training states the following:\nH1-1: Does the operator’s program provide controller training on\nrecognizing and responding to abnormal operating conditions that are\nlikely to occur simultaneously or in sequence?\n Operator must establish a list of foreseeable operating scenarios that are\nmore likely to cause simultaneous AOCs, or multiple AOCs in\nsequence, and train controllers on how to recognize and handle them.\n Operators must include training on lessons learned from the review of\noperating experience, in accordance with (g)(2), including critiques of\nall recent accidents/incidents.\n Operators should review historical alarm logs to identify candidate\nscenarios for training.\n9\n9 Respondent Prehearing Submission, Exhibit 4, PHMSA Control Room Management: Inspection\nQuestions at 53 (Sept. 30, 2011) (emphasis added).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-5021\nPage 5\nRespondent is correct that the protocol is not adopted into the pipeline safety regulations and\ntherefore does not, on its own, form the basis for a regulatory violation. The guidance does,\nhowever, provide information to the regulated community regarding how OPS evaluates an\noperator’s control room management program under the regulations. For example, with respect\nto the regulation cited in this case, the Agency believes the best way to identify AOCs likely to\noccur simultaneously or in sequence is to review historical alarm logs. This is because an\noperator’s alarm logs document actual occurrences of AOCs on the operator’s pipeline system.\nThe alarm logs also demonstrate when AOCs have occurred simultaneously or in sequence. It\nmay be possible for an operator to use an alternative method to identify AOCs that are likely to\noccur simultaneously or in sequence on its system, but in most cases the Agency believes an\noperator will at least need to review actual historical AOCs documented in its historical alarm\nlogs.\nIn the present case, Respondent has not demonstrated that its procedures provided for the review\nof historical alarm logs or any other method for identifying and training controllers on AOCs\nlikely to occur simultaneously or in sequence on its pipeline system.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record, I find that Respondent violated § 195.446 by failing to\nhave control room management procedures for implementing the requirements of\n§ 195.446(h)(1) related to controller training.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.10\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation\nwithout any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may\nrequire.\n10 On June 30, 2016, PHMSA adjusted the maximum penalties for inflation (81 Fed. Reg. 42564).\nPursuant to § 190.223, any person found to have committed a violation on or after August 1, 2016, is\nsubject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $205,638 for each violation for each day the\nviolation continues, with the maximum administrative civil penalty not to exceed $2,056,380 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-5021\nPage 6\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $30,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(a), for failing to have control room management procedures that implemented the\nrequirements of § 195.446(h)(1) related to controller training.\nThe proposed penalty was based on assertions in the Notice and Violation Report relevant to the\npenalty assessment criteria in § 190.225. With regard to the nature of the violation, the Violation\nReport noted this violation concerned Respondent’s failure to have procedures related to\ncontroller training. With regard to circumstances, the Violation Report noted the violation was\ndiscovered by OPS. With regard to gravity, the Violation Report suggested pipeline safety was\nminimally affected. With regard to the degree of Respondent’s good faith, the Violation Report\nsuggested no credit under this factor. Respondent has a history of nine prior offenses within the\nlast five years.\nRespondent argued that the proposed penalty should be reduced because it had written\nprocedures for training controllers on AOCs and followed them. Respondent also offered\nevidence that AOCs were listed as an element of the CRM Training Program,11 and that the\ntraining materials and content addressed the possible occurrence of AOCs likely to occur\nsimultaneously or in sequence.12 Respondent also provided examples of historic AOCs that\noccurred simultaneously or in sequence, which were used for training.13 Further, a narrative\nsummary of the event, historic alarm logs, and historian trend printouts were used to illustrate the\nexamples.14\nWith regard to the culpability of the Respondent, I find that although the Company’s procedures\ndid not meet the requirement of the regulation, Respondent has taken significant steps towards\ncompliance with the cited regulation by ensuring controllers were trained regarding AOCs likely\nto occur simultaneously or in sequence. Therefore, I find a reduction to the proposed penalty is\nappropriate.\nBased upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $25,900 for violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a).\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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, 6500 S MacArthur\nBlvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is\n(405) 954-8845.\n11 Respondent Prehearing Submission, Ex. 5, Section III. Initial training C.\n12 Respondent Prehearing Submission, Exs. 6 and 10.\n13 Respondent Prehearing Submission, Ex. 10.\n14 Closing at 7.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2013-5021\nPage 7\nFailure to pay the $25,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.446 respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director\nindicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance\norder:\nWith respect to the violation of § 195.446 (Item 1), Respondent amended its Control\nRoom Management Manual to include a detailed written process for reviewing historical\nalarm logs to identify training scenarios, in accordance with §195.446(h)(1).\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. It is not\nnecessary to include compliance terms in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,\nEast Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, no later than 20 days after receipt of the Final\nOrder by the Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed, however, the other terms of the order, including\nthe corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nDecember 2, 2016\n_______________________________ _______________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28693}