{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 120145007","title":"BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-11-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.428(a), 195.432(b), 195.583(a), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120145007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120145007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120145007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120145007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BUCKEYE PARTNERS, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.428(a),  195.432(b),  195.583(a),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2014-11-19 and is reported as closed as of 2017-04-13. Proposed civil penalty: $198,700. Assessed civil penalty: $193,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n120145007_Closure Letter_04132017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Closure%20Letter_04132017.pdf\n\n120145007_Closure Letter_04132017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Closure%20Letter_04132017_text.pdf\n\n120145007_Final Order_12172015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Final%20Order_12172015.pdf\n\n120145007_Final Order_12172015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Final%20Order_12172015_text.pdf\n\n120145007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_11192014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_11192014.pdf\n\n120145007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_11192014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_11192014_text.pdf\n\n120145007_Operator Response to Notice_12162014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120145007/120145007_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12162014.pdf\n\n120145007_Final Order_12172015_text.pdf\n\nDecember 17, 2015\nMr. Clark C. Smith\nPresident & CEO\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nOne Greenway Plaza\nHouston, Texas 77046\nRe: CPF No. 1-2014-5007\nDear Mr. Smith:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one\nallegation of violation in part, makes other findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty\nof $193,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Buckeye Partners, LP, to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order.\nWhen the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. 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, PE, Director, Eastern Region, OPS\nMr. Thomas S. (Scott) Collier, Vice President, Performance Assurance & Asset Integrity,\nBuckeye Partners, LP, Five TEK Park, 9999 Hamilton Boulevard, Breinigsville, PA\n18031\nMs. Claudia Pankowski, Director, Regulatory Compliance, Buckeye Partners, LP\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nBuckeye Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 1-2014-5007\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nBetween October 15, 2012, and April 10, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives\nof the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of\nBuckeye Partners, LP (Buckeye or Respondent), in the Linden, New Jersey area. Respondent\nowns and operates liquid petroleum-product pipeline systems throughout the United States, with\nover 6,000 miles of pipeline. Respondent also owns approximately 100 liquid petroleum\nproducts terminals, with a storage capacity of more than 70 million barrels.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated November 19, 2014, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Buckeye had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $198,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nBuckeye responded to the Notice by letter dated December 16, 2014 (Response). The company\npartly contested one of the allegations of violation, offered additional information in response to\nthe Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced accordingly. Respondent\ndid not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195 as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n1 Buckeye Partners, LP, website, available at http://www.buckeye.com/BusinessOperations/tabid/56/Default.aspx\n(last accessed October 1, 2015).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2014-5007\nPage 2\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it\nis functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate\nfrom the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service\nin which it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to test certain\npressure control equipment to determine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical\ncondition, and is adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the\nservice in which it is used. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye:\n(a) failed to test both the high and high-high level alarms on Tank 119 over two required\nintervals; and\n(b) failed to test the high and high-high level alarms on Tanks 135 and 156 over two required\nintervals.\nIn its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegation in part (b) of Item 1, regarding Tanks 135\nand 156, that it failed to test both alarms on these tanks during the specified interval. With\nregard to part (a), regarding Tank 119, Buckeye indicated that it had now located records for this\ntank, demonstrating that the annual tests had been done as required during the specified period,\nand included copies of these records with its Response.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a), by failing to test both the high and high-high level alarms on Tanks 135 and 156\nover two inspection intervals. I further find that Respondent was not out of compliance with\nrespect to Tank 119. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Part (a) of Item 1 be\nwithdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states:\n§ 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks.\n(a)…\n(b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service\natmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks\naccording to API Standard 653 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).\nHowever, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, the\nbottom integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2014-5007\nPage 3\noperations and maintenance manual under § 195.402(c)(3).2\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to inspect the\nphysical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-ground breakout tanks\naccording to API Standard 653. Specifically, the Notice alleged that portions of the tank\ninspection forms involving the inspection of appurtenances, insulation, and tank paint coatings\nchecklists were not completed.\nIn its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegations in Item 2 of the Notice. Accordingly,\nafter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by\nfailing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel above-\nground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to\nthe atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline\nis\nlocated: Onshore……… Offshore……... Then the frequency of inspection is:\nAt least once every 3 calendar years, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nAt least once each calendar year, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 15 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect each\npipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric\ncorrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Buckeye failed to inspect piping located in three valve pits at\nthe Flemington Pump Station during the company’s June 23, 2010 inspection of that facility.\nIn its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegations in Item 3 of the Notice. Accordingly,\nafter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by\nfailing to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for\nevidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals not\nexceeding 39 months.\n2 Section 195.432 has subsequently been amended as of August 6, 2015 (80 FR 46848), but the former version that\nwas in effect at the time of the alleged violation is the one applied and quoted here.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2014-5007\nPage 4\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), which states:\n§ 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(a) …\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check,\ndemonstration, examination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and\ntest required by this subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the\nadequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control\nmeasures does not exist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years,\nexcept that records related to §§195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and\n195.579(b)(3) and (c) must be retained for as long as the pipeline remains\nin service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain\nrecords of atmospheric corrosion inspections conducted on exposed pipe. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Buckeye’s records of atmospheric corrosion inspections for facilities in\nLinden and Newark, New Jersey,were incomplete and did not have sufficient detail to\ndemonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures.\nIn its Response, Buckeye did not contest the allegations in Item 4 of the Notice. Accordingly,\nafter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c) by\nfailing to maintain records of atmospheric corrosion inspections conducted on exposed pipe.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\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.3 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider 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 $198,700 for the violations cited above.\n3 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations. For\nviolations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day,\nwith a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2014-5007\nPage 5\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $77,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a), for failing to test certain pressure control equipment on Tanks 119, 135, and 156 to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in which it is used.\nWith respect to part (a) of Item 1 regarding Tank 119, in its Response, Buckeye demonstrated\nthat it was not out of compliance. As discussed above, this portion of Item 1 has been\nwithdrawn, along with the associated penalty. With respect to part (b) of Item 1 regarding tanks\n135 and 156, Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. I therefore find that the penalty amount proposed\nin the Notice for part (b) is warranted, considering the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the\nviolation and Respondent’s culpability for the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of\n$72,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $57,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.432(b), for failing to inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-\npressure steel above-ground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653. Buckeye neither\ncontested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the\nproposed penalty. I therefore find that the penalty amount proposed in the Notice is warranted,\nconsidering the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation and Respondent’s culpability\nfor the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $57,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.583(a), for failing to inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but\nwith intervals not exceeding 39 months. Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented\nany evidence or argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. I therefore find that the\npenalty amount proposed in the notice is warranted, considering the nature, circumstances, and\ngravity of the violation and Respondent’s culpability for the violation. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$43,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $20,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c), for failing to maintain records of atmospheric corrosion inspections\nconducted on exposed pipe. Buckeye neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence\nor argument justifying a reduction in the proposed penalty. I therefore find that the penalty\namount proposed in the Notice is warranted, considering the nature, circumstances, and gravity\nof the violation and Respondent’s culpability for the violation. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $20,200\nfor violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c).\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 $193,000.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2014-5007\nPage 6\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\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $193,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in 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 2, 3, and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432(b), 195.583(a), and 195.589(c), respectively. Under 49\nU.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\nowns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the\npipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.432(b) (Item 2) pertaining to inspection of\nthe condition of breakout tank paint coatings and appurtenances in accordance with\nAPI Standard 653 paragraph 6.3.1.3:\na. b. c. Buckeye must review its tank inspection procedures and revise them to fully\naddress the requirements of API Standard 653. Specifically, the revisions must:\ni. Identify and define the roles and responsibilities of all personnel involved\nin the process;\nii. Ensure that the disposition of all recommended repairs and monitoring is\ndocumented in writing and that reasons are given if recommended actions\nare delayed or deemed unnecessary; and\niii. Specify the actions to be taken by personnel when field conditions prevent\nthe inspection of any item on the checklists (e.g., the Chime covered with\nsoil or water);\nFor all breakout tanks at the Linden Station, Buckeye must conduct routine in-\nservice inspections and remediate as necessary in accordance with the procedures\nmodified pursuant to paragraph (a) above; and\nSubmit documentation demonstrating completion of the revisions and routine in-\nservice inspections required by paragraphs (a)−(b) of this item to the Director\nwithin 90 days of receipt of this Order.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2014-5007\nPage 7\n4. 2. With respect to the violation of § 195.583(a) (Item 3) pertaining to atmospheric\ncorrosion control, Respondent must:\na. b. c. d. Inspect the piping in the valve pits at the Flemington, NJ pump station;\nEvaluate the piping to ensure that pipe integrity is suitable for the maximum\noperating pressure of the pipeline;\nInspect, clean and coat (as necessary) the piping according to 49 CFR Part 195\nand Buckeye’s procedures; and\nSubmit documentation demonstrating completion of the actions required by\nparagraphs (a)−(c) of this item to the Director within 60 days of receipt of this\nOrder.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.589(c) (Item 4) pertaining to the corrosion\ncontrol procedures for exposed pipe, Respondent must:\na. b. c. d. Revise its corrosion control procedures to give detailed instructions for\ninspections of pipelines or portions of pipelines that are exposed to the\natmosphere, and in particular must include pipe that is just below grade at soil-to\nair interfaces. Specifically:\ni. The procedures must provide a methodology for assessing the integrity of\nthe underground portion of the soil-to-air interface when the visual\ninspection of the aboveground portion indicates bare pipe or damaged or\ndisbonded coating; and\nii. The procedures must provide for grading the severity of atmospheric or\ngalvanic corrosion. In Form B of Buckeye Corrosion Manual Procedure\nA-04: Visual Pipe Inspection (CFR Title 49: Parts 195.569, 195.581(c),\n195.583(a), 195.583(c)) revised 9/2013, the terms “minor”, “moderate”,\nand “severe” are used to describe rust or pitting for the condition of\naboveground piping, risers and pipe supports. The revised procedures\nmust provide measurement parameters for these terms that allow the\ncorrosion technician to distinguish between the severity ratings in order to\nproperly classify corrosion severity and take appropriate remedial actions.\nThe procedures must also specify timelines for addressing each severity\nrating;\nInspect all of the soil-to-air interfaces in the Linden, NJ facility, in accordance\nwith the revised procedures that were not inspected within the time described in\nthe regulations;\nClean and coat the exposed piping as necessary according to 49 CFR Part 195 and\nBuckeye’s associated procedures; and\nSubmit documentation demonstrating completion of the actions required by\nparagraphs (a)−(c) of this item to the Director within 180 days of receipt of this\nOrder.\nSubmit all documentation demonstrating compliance with each of the items outlined\nin this order to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2014-5007\nPage 8\nMaterials Safety Administration, Suite 103, Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, NJ\n08628 for review.\n5. It is requested (not mandated) that Buckeye maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Byron Coy, Director, Eastern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories:\n(1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and\nanalyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other physical\nchanges to pipeline facilities.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be sent to: Associate\nAdministrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building,\n2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at\nthe same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of\nservice of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the\nissue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate\nAdministrator, upon request, grants a stay, all other terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n120145007_Closure Letter_04132017_text.pdf\n\nEXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY\nApril 13, 2017\nT. Scott Collier, Vice President\nPerformance Assurance & Asset Integrity\nBuckeye Partners, LP\nFive TEK Park\n9999 Hamilton Boulevard\nBreinigsville, PA 18031\nCPF 1-2014-5007\nDear Mr. Collier:\nOn December 15, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Buckeye Partners, LP a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a\nCompliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the documentation you\nprovided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty on December 22, 2015, it has been\ndetermined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nActing Director, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":25582}