{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220021004","title":"OZARK GAS TRANSMISSION, L.L.C — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2002-03-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.465(a), 192.517, 192.603(b), 192.605(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220021004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220021004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220021004","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220021004","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving OZARK GAS TRANSMISSION, L.L.C. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192,  192.465(a),  192.517,  192.603(b),  192.605(a). The case was opened on 2002-03-07 and is reported as closed as of 2006-10-05. Proposed civil penalty: $41,000. Assessed civil penalty: $36,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220021004_Decision On Petition_12312003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220021004/220021004_Decision%20On%20Petition_12312003.pdf\n\n220021004_decision on petition_12312003_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220021004/220021004_decision%20on%20petition_12312003_text.pdf\n\n220021004_Final Order_04292003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220021004/220021004_Final%20Order_04292003.pdf\n\n220021004_final order_04292003_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220021004/220021004_final%20order_04292003_text.pdf\n\n220021004_Petition for Reconsideration_05282003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220021004/220021004_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_05282003.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_2-2002-1004.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220021004/CPF_NO_2-2002-1004.pdf\n\n220021004_decision on petition_12312003_text.pdf\n\nU, S. Department\nof Transportation\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S W\nRoom 8407\nWashington, D C 20590\nPhone (202) 366-4400\nFax (202) 366-7041\nDEC 3 l Zo, \"\nMr. E. Keith Mitchell\nPresident\nOzark Gas Transmission L. L. C.\nSuite 600\n515 Central Park Drive\nOklahoma City, OK 73105\nRe. : CPF No. 2-2002-1004\nDear Mr. Mitchell:\nEnclosed is a decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed in the above-referenced case.\nThe Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety has denied the petition and therefore, payment of\nthe $36, 600 civil penalty is due immediately. Respondent must also now comply with the terms of\nthe Compliance Order contained in the Final Order issued to your company on April 29, 2003. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the enclosed decision. Your receipt of this decision constitutes\nproper service under 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nCompliance Registry\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nOzark Gas Transmission, L. L. C.\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 2-2002-1004\n,\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nThis enforcement action began with a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Comphance Order,\nand Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice) issued to Ozark Gas Transmission, L. L. C. (Respondent), on\nMarch 7, 2002. Following issuance of the Notice, Respondent forwarded a letter to OPS explaining\nthe actions that it had taken in response to the proposed compliance order and requesting\n\"ehmination or mitigation\" of the proposed civil penalty of $41, 000. The Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety took into account the response and issued a Final Order, pursuant to 49 U. S. C\n$ 60122, assessing a civil penalty of $36, 600. The Final Order, issued on April 29, 2003, estabhshed\nthat Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. () 192. 517, 192. 603, and 192. 605.\nOn May 28, 2003, Respondent filed a Petition for Reconsideration (\" Petition\" ) formally requesting\nreconsideration of the Final Order. Respondent raised several arguments. Respondent first asked\nthat a consent order be executed. Respondent also sought a further reduction in the civil penalty that\nwas assessed based upon the criteria estabhshed at 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 225 including Respondent's\n\"[positive] actions and good faith attempts to be in compliance, \" and based upon \"rehance of Ozark\non statements by DOT region personnel\" that the penalty would be in a \"much lower range\"\n(Petition, p 1) Finally Respondent contended that Arkansas Western Gas Company, not Ozark, is\nthe operator of the pipehne.\nRegardmg Respondent's first argument, consent orders are considered in very hmited circumstances\nConsent orders are only executed by the mutual agreement of the parties, and if no comphance order\nunder ( 190. 213 has been issued. Here, a compliance order under ( 190. 213 has already been issued.\nTherefore, a consent order cannot now be executed.\nRespondent next argued that it has taken positive steps to come into compliance, and that under\n49 C F. R. ) 190. 225 it is entitled to \"further mitigation of the penalty amount. \" Respondent is\ncorrect that section 190 225(e) specifies, among other factors, that the OPS Associate Administrator\nshall consider \"[a]ny good faith by the respondent in attempting to achieve comphance\"\nRespondent is advised that the appropriate stage for consideration of these factors is when the Fmal\nOrder is being prepared, and that these factors were fully considered when the penalty amount was\nestablished in the Fmal Order\n\n\n\nRespondent further argued that it rehed on \"statements by DOT region personnel that the\nrecommendations for penalty were in a much lower range\" (Petition, p 1) Although it is not\nentirely clear, it appears that Respondent is assertmg that it did not protest the civil penalty amount\nproposed in the Notice more strongly because it understood from DOT regional personnel that the\nfinal penalty amount would be reduced. Even if DOT personnel did state that the civil penalty would\nbe reduced, such a representation would have created no obligation on the part of the agency because\nFinal Orders are approved and signed at the headquarters level, not at the regional office level In\nother words, any written regional recommendations are placed in the enforcement case file before\nthe Associate Administrator receives the file and determines what action is appropriate.\nFinally, Respondent asserted that although it acquired interest in the pipeline that is the subject of\nthis action in 1998, a third party, Arkansas Western Gas Company (AWG) operates \"certain\nportions\" of the Ozark pipehne. It is not an uncommon practice in the pipehne industry for a\npipeline owner to turn over the operation and maintenance responsibihties to a third party. This\ncontractual arrangement does not absolve the owner from responsibihty, however. According to the\nDefinitions section of Part 192, an \"operator\" is a person who engages in the transportation of gas.\nTherefore, by definition owners of natural gas pipehnes are subject to regulation under Part 192 since\nthey are engaged in the transportation of gas by pipeline. Whether the owner is an active participant\nin the business operation or not is of no consequence. Enforcement and comphance actions may be\ndirected to either the owner or operator of pipehne facilities\nOzark next raised specific arguments with regard to the violations in the Final Order. Those\narguments, raised in Ozark's Petition, are addressed below in the order that they were raised.\nWith respect to Item 3, Ozark wrote that the Final Order incorrectly stated that Ozark had made a\ncommitment to determine required elevation variations for the purpose of determining the pipehne's\nmaximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) within 60 days. Although it was not exphcitly\nstated, the Final Order imphed that the determination would be made within 60 days of issuance of\nthe Notice. Respondent is correct that the Final Order failed to state that Ozark committed to\ndetermining elevation variations withm 60 days of issuance of the Fina1 Order.\nWith respect to Items 4(a) through (d), Ozark argued that it submitted certain documentation to OPS\nafter the Notice letter was issued but before the Final Order was issued, and that based on the\nadequacy of the information submitted and statements made by OPS personnel, it beheved that the\npenalties associated with these items would \"be dropped prior to the Fmal Order\". ' (Petition, p. 2,\nemphasis added). On page one of its Petition, Respondent said that it was told that the penalties\nwould be lowered. This discrepancy raises some question concerning precisely what was said to\nRespondent's representatives. Nonetheless, as stated above, regional staff do not make final penalty\n' The Notice alleged five instances (includmg Item 4(e) adch essed below) in which\nRespondent failed to maintain adequate records necessary to administer the procedures\nestablished under section 192. 605.\n\n\n\ndetermmations. Furthermore, followmg Respondent's discovery ofhydrostatic testing records after\nOPS' issuance of the Notice, the penalty amount for Item 4 was reduced from $22, 000 to $17, 600,\nor one-fifth of the proposed penalty, to account for the discovery of records required by Item 4(a)\nThere were four other violations (items (b)-(e)) under Item 4. Respondent has not submitted any\nadditional evidence that would support further reduction in the penalty.\nOzark further asserted that third party contractor AWG, rather than Ozark, should have been cited\nfor Item 4(e) because AWG operates the portion of the pipeline where the violation occurred. As\nstated above, OPS possesses the authority to cite either the owner or operator of pipeline facihties\noperating in violation of the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, this violation will not be\nwithdrawn\nRespondent also contested the penalty imposed regarding Item 5(c) in the Notice. Item 5(c)\naddressed Ozark's failure to record aerial patrols/leak surveys on a required form. Item 5 contained\ntwo other violations, one for failure to correct low pipe-to-soil readings, and one for failure to\nperform annual population density/class location studies. Although Respondent completed the aerial\npatrol/leak survey reports that were the subject of Item 5(c) after the inspection was performed, the\nreports were not complete at the time of the inspection. Respondent has not submitted any additional\ninformation that would justify reduction of the penalty amount. Therefore, Respondent's request to\nhave this penalty mitigated is denied.\nRespondent contested the finding of violation for Item 6, contending that AWG, not Ozark, is the\noperator of the Mountain Home Lateral hne. Ozark specifically pointed to 49 C. F. R. ) 192. 605(a)\nwhich indicates that the operator is the party responsible for insuring compliance with this\nregulation As stated above, by definition an operator is any party engaged in the transportation of\ngas Therefore, Ozark may properly be held responsible for this violation.\nPayment of the full civil penalty in the amount of $36, 600 must be made within 20 days of service.\nFederal regulations (49 C. F. R $ 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through\nthe Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U S. Treasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained m the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial\nOperations Division, (AMZ-320), P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; telephone number\n(405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U. S. C. $ 3717, 4 C. F. R. $ 102. 13 and 49 C F. R. ) 89. 23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in an United States District Court\n\n\n\nRespondent is further directed to comply with the terms of the Comphance Order contained in the\nFinal Order within 60 days of receipt of this Petition. This decision on reconsideration is the final\nadministrative action in this proceeding.\nStaceyL. G' a\nAssociate dministrator\nfor Pipehne Safety\nDate Issued\n\n220021004_final order_04292003_text.pdf\n\nO\nUS Department\nof Trdnsportatton\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S W\nWashington, D C 20590\nAPR 29 m03\nMr. E. Keith Mitchell, President\nOzark Gas Transmission, L. L. C.\n515 Central Park Drive, Suite 600\nOklahoma City, OK 73105\nRE: CPF No. 2-2002-1004\nDear Mr. Mitchell:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the\nabove-referenced case. It makes findings of violations, assesses a civil penalty of $36, 600 and\nrequires certain corrective action. At such time that the terms of the compliance order are completed,\nas determined by the Southern Regional Director and the civil penalty is paid, this enforcement\naction will be closed. The penalty payment and terms are set forth in the Final Order. Your receipt\nof the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nGwendolyn M. Hi\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEticlo sure\ncc: Dan Harris, Vice-President Operations\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nOZARK GAS TRANSMISSION,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 2-2002-1004\nFINAL ORDER\nDuring May 7-11, 2001 and June 3-8, 2001, representatives of the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\npursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of Respondent's\nfacilities in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri and records in Fort Smith and Fayetteville, Arkansas.\nAs a result of the inspections, the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated March 7, 2002, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed\nCompliance Order. In accordance with 49 C. F. R. )190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had violated 49 C. F. R. )$192. 517, 192. 603, 192. 605 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $41, 000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations.\nIn a letter dated April 10, 2002, Respondent submitted a Response to the Notice (Response).\nRespondent contested some of the allegations, provided information concerning the corrective\nactions it had taken and requested mitigation of the proposed civil penalty. On April 25, 2002,\nRespondent submitted a supplemental Response to the Notice, providing additional documents and\ninformation concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not request a hearing,\nconsequently Respondent waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 3 of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $192. 517 by not maintaining a\nsufficient record of each test performed under $$ 192. 505 and 192. 507 for the Mountain Home\nLateral line, as test records did not contain elevation variations.\nIn its initial response to Item 3, Respondent stated that within 60 days it would determine significant\nelevation differences along the Mountain Home Lateral line and determine the pipeline's maximum\nallowable operating pressure (MAOP)\n\n\n\nRespondent acknowledged that it was unable to provide test records containing elevation variations\nat the time of the inspection. Although Respondent advised that it would submit documentation,\nwithin 60 days, determining sigmficant elevation differences along the line, it has failed to do so.\nRespondent has not shown any circumstance that would have prevented or justifled it not\nmaintaining a sufficient record with elevation variations of each test performed under g$ 192. 505\nand 192. 507 of the Mountain Home Lateral line. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C. F. R. )192. 517.\nItem 4a-e of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $192. 603 by not maintaining\nrecords necessary to administer the procedures established under $192. 605 There were (a) no\nrecords to determine the MAOP of the 8. 5 mile 8-inch pipeline near Kennett, MO; (b) no records\nof the main line regulator inspection in year 2000 for the 10-inch to 8-inch Kennett Line regulator;\n(c) no documentation of required follow-up actions for patrol reports performed March 2000; (d) no\nrecords of inspection of all valves that could be used in an emergency at the Mountain Home Tap,\nScotland Launcher Receiver site and Kennett Station; and (e) no records to indicate that blow off\nvalves were partially operated and inspected.\nIn its initial response to Item 4a, Respondent explained that it had located records that would allow\nMAOP to be established by hydrostatic testing under the guidelines in 49 C. F. R. $192. 619. As for\nItem 4b, Respondent acknowledged not having year 2000 inspection records for the 10-inch to 8-inch\nKennett Line regulator but advised that an inspection was performed in March 2002 and submitted\nits \"Downstream Pressure Over Ride Check\" form. With regard to Item 4c, Respondent advised that\nits patrol reports have been corrected to reflect follow up actions. As for Item 4d, Respondent stated\nthat it inspected the cited valves between August 3, 2001 and August 9, 2001 and listed them on the\nproper valve form. In response to Item 4e, Respondent explained that it has an Operating and\nMaintenance Agreement with Arkansas Western Gas Company (AWG) and that AWG has been\ninstructed to maintain all jurisdictional facilities to DOT standards and in compliance with\nRespondent's operations and maintenance manual.\nRespondent is responsible for compliance with the pipeline safety regulations, which includes sound\nrecord keeping. Without this history, an operator will have difficultly determining areas where there\nare problems that need to be addressed. The Notice alleged five instances in which Respondent\nfailed to maintain adequate records necessary to administer the procedures established under\n$192. 605. Respondent does not deny that records cited in Item 4a, Item 4c, Item 4d and 4e were not\nprovided or properly maintained at the time of the inspection. Furthermore, Respondent\nacknowledged not having the inspection records cited in Item 4b. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C. F. R. )192 603.\nItem 5 of the Notice alleges that Respondent violated 49 C F. R )192. 605 by not following written\nprocedures (a) to take remedial measures where pipe-to-soil readings were not within the allowed\ncriteria; (b) to conduct an annual population density/class location study in 1999 or 2000 on its 20-\ninch Ozark line and (c) to document West aerial patrols/leak siuveys on Form 3101, Pipeline Patrol\nand Leak Survey Report.\n\n\n\nIn response, Respondent did not contest Item 5, but offered information in explanation of the\nallegations. Respondent explained that it has engaged a third party contractor to perform a Line\nPatroVLeak Survey and Density/Class location study. Respondent further explained that at the tiine\nof the aerial patrol it was in the process of changing its forms. Respondent advised that it installed\n5 insulator kits at the Davis station on June 20, 2001. Respondent further advised that its West\nAerial Patrols/Leak Survey reports have been transferred and documented on Form 3101 for the 2001\nPipeline Patrol and Leak Survey.\nRespondent did not dispute the allegations in Item 5. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C. F. R. $192. 605 (a) by not following written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response.\nItem 6 of the Notice alleges that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $192. 605(a) by failing to have its\nprocedure manual available to appropriate operating personnel to maintain its facilities. Respondent\nhas an agreement with AWG to operate and maintain Respondent's Mountain Home Lateral line and\ncertain meter/regulator stations. At time of the inspection, AWG personnel did not have\nRespondent's procedure manual available. AWG personnel stated that they use AWG's Operation,\nInspection, and Maintenance Plan to maintain Respondent's facilities.\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the violation alleged in Item 6 of the Notice but offered\ninformation in explanation of the allegation. Respondent explained that on February 28, 2002 it\nprovided an updated copy of its OAM manual to AWG and explained to AWG that all OAM\nactivities for Respondent's facilities are to be conducted in accordance with Respondent's 08cM\nmanual.\nAll gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operators must maintain and make available to appropriate\noperating personnel a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities and for emergency response to enable personnel to safely and effectively perform their\nduties and maintain its facilities. Respondent did not dispute the allegations in Item 6. Accordingly,\nI find that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $192. 605 by failing to have its written procedures for\nconducting operations and maintenance activities available to appropriate operating personnel.\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 a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n\n\n\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed\na total penalty assessment of $41, 000 for Items 4, 5, and 6.\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22, 000 for violations of 49 C. F. R. $192. 603(b), as\nRespondent failed to maintain records necessary to administer the procedures established under\n)192. 605. In response to Item 4, the Respondent requested elimination or mitigation of the proposed\n$22, 000 civil penalty.\nThe Notice identified five instances in which Respondent failed to maintain records. Having\nreviewed the record, considered the assessment criteria and Respoiident's submission of original\nrecords (Item 4a) for the Kennett 8-inch pipeline, the civil penalty will be reduced proportionately.\nAccordingly, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $17, 600 for failing to maintain records necessary\nto administer the procedures established under )192. 605, as described in Items 4 (b) - (e).\nItem 5 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $14, 000 for Respondent's failure to follow written\nprocedures. Respondent did not contest Item 5, but offered information in explanation of the\nallegations. Respondent has not shown any circumstance that would have prevented or justified it\nnot following written procedures as required by 49 C. F. R. $192. 605(a). Remedial measures for low\npipe-to-soil readings were not taken within 1 year. Adverse conditions should be corrected as soon\nas possible and no later than the next inspection cycles. Respondent should have take prompt\nremedial action to address the low pipe-to-soil readings, rather than wait for two or three cycles of\nlow readings before installing 5 insulator kits at the Davis station. Accordingly, having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $14, 000 for\nviolation of 49 C. F. R. $192. 605(a).\nItem 6 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for Respondent's failure to have its written\nprocedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities and for emergency response\navailable to appropriate operating personnel to maintain its facilities. Respondent has not shown any\ncircumstance that would have prevented or justified it not making its written procedures available.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na civil penalty of $5, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R. $192. 605.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of $36, 600. A determination has been made that Respondent has the ability to\npay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue business.\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 this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury.\n\n\n\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should\nbe directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $36, 600 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 same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral\nof the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in an United States District Court.\nWARNING ITEMS\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action with respect to Items 1, and 2;\ntherefore, these are considered warning items. Respondent is warned that if it does not take\nappropriate action to correct the following items, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent\ninspection finds a violation.\n49 C. F. R. )192, 465(a) - failing to test its16-inch Noark Line at test station MP 70. 06\nfor cathodic protection at least once each calendar year, but with intervals not\nexceeding 15 months.\n49 C. F. R. )192. 471(a) - failing to connect the test lead wire to its 16-inch Noark\npipeline at test station No. 46 (MP 229. 03). Survey records indicated \"broken\nwire\"and no repairs were made in 1999 or 2000.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 3 and 4a. Respondent has\ndemonstrated corrective action addressing Item 4a by submitting the missing records and copies of\npipe mill records and hydrostatic tests reports of the Kennett 8-inch pipeline. Also Respondent has\ndetermined the pipeline MAOP to be 915 psig. These measures are accepted as adequately fulfilhng\nthe requirements of the pipehne safety regulations.\nUnder 49 U. S. C. $ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U. S. C. ) 60118(b) and 49 C. F. R. $ 190 217,\nRespondent is hereby ordered to take the following actions related to Item 3 of the Notice to ensure\ncompliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations.\n1) With respect to Item 3, violation of 49 C. F. R. $192. 517, determine significant elevation\ndifferences along the Mountain Home Lateral line and use hydrostatic test records to\ndetermine and/or re-confirm pipeline MAOP in accordance with )192. 619. Complete this\nwork within 60 days following receipt of the Final Order. Submit the records and notice of\ncompleted actions to the Southern Regional Director, Office of Pipehne Safety, 61 Forsyth\nStreet, SW, Suite 16T15, Atlanta, GA 30303.\n\n\n\n2) The Southern Regional Director, may grant an extension of time for compliance with any\nof the terms of this order for good cause. A request for an extension must be in writing.\nUnder 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final Order and\nmust contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically stays the\npayment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order, including any required corrective\naction, shall remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\nFailure to comply with this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to\n$100, 000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement.\nAPR 29 ZL3\nDate Issued\nStacey Gerard\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipehne Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28686}