{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220055002","title":"HUNT REFINING CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-03-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.52.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055002.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055002.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220055002","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220055002","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving HUNT REFINING CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.52. The case was opened on 2005-03-21 and is reported as closed as of 2006-06-08. Proposed civil penalty: $5,000. Assessed civil penalty: $5,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220055002_Final Order_11152005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220055002/220055002_Final%20Order_11152005.pdf\n\n220055002_final order_11152005_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220055002/220055002_final%20order_11152005_text.pdf\n\nFinal Order Hunt Refining Company CPF No 2-2005-5002.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220055002/Final%20Order%20Hunt%20Refining%20Company%20CPF%20No%202-2005-5002.pdf\n\n220055002_final order_11152005_text.pdf\n\nU. s. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous ttttaterlats Safety\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20590\nNOV 15 2005\nMr. David Carroll\nVice President and General Counsel\nHunt Refining Company\n100 Town Center Blvd.\nSuite 300\n,\nTuscaloosa, AL 35406-1829\nRE: CPF No. 2-2005-5002\nDear Mr. Carroll:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $5, 000.\nThe penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document\nunder 49 C. F. R. It 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, OPS Southern Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\nRECEIVES NOV 2 2 2005\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nHunt Refining Company,\nRespondent.\nCPF No. 2-2005-5002\nFINAL ORDER\nOn December 28, 2004, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. tj 60117, a representative of the Southern Region,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) initiated an investigation of Respondent's report of an incident\ninvolving its 6-inch petroleum pipeline in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. As a result of the investigation, the\nDirector, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated March 21, 2005, a Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207,\nthe Notice proposed finding that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 52 and proposed assessing\na civil penalty of $5, 000 for the alleged violation.\nIn a letter dated March 29, 2005, Respondent submitted a Response to the Notice(Response).\nRespondent contested the allegation of violation, offered information to explain the allegation,\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated, and requested a hearing. A hearing was held\nvia telephone conference on May 4, 2005.\nFIND NGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. )195. 52 by not giving telephonic notification\nto the National Response Center (NRC), at the earliest practicable moment, following discovery of\nthe incident that occurred on December 27, 2004. The incident involved a release of 300 barrels of\nNo. 2-D fuel on Respondent's 6-inch petroleum pipeline three miles southwest of the Hunt Oil\nRefinery in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In response to a phone call from an adjacent property owner,\nRespondent arrived at the incident site at approximately 3:15 p. m on December 27, 2004 CST.\nAccording to the NRC and the Alabama Public Service Commission pipeline safety office,\nRespondent did not give the NRC telephonic notification of the incident until 10:20 a. m. EST on\nDecember 28, 2005, approximately 18 hours after discovery of the incident.\nIn response, Respondent conceded that it received notice from an adjacent property owner of a leak\nin the area of its 6-inch product pipeline on December 27, 2004, at approximately 2:30 p. m. CST and\narrived at approximately 3:35 p. m. Respondent advised that upon arrival it observed bubbles\n\n\n\ncoming from water which covered the area of the pipeline right-of-way. Due to recent rains, there\nwas a great deal of water covering the area and it was not possible to tell the extent of the release.\nRespondent immediately shutdown the pipeline and began an evaluation of a wooded area.\nRespondent explained that it also recognized that there was standing water and that any additional\nrainfall might cause any product to migrate. Respondent further advised that it took a sample from\nthe nearest stream to confirm that no product had reached the stream. Respondent placed a boom\nat the stream, approximately 'r4 mile away, because of the standing rainwater. Respondent then\nmobilized its vacuum truck to suction up the tdsible liquid, which appeared to be rainwater. This\nwas done just before the sun set at 4:51 p. m. on December 27, 2004,\nRespondent determined, based upon its initial evaluation, that it was not a reportable incident under\n49 C F R. tj19552 because there was no death or personal injuryrequiring hospitalization; there was\nno fire or explosion; it did not appear tha& the property damage including clean up cost would meet\n$50, 000; there was no pollution of any stream and it did not appear significant.\nRespondent argued that notification was made as soon as practicable, at 9:20 a. m. on December 28,\n2004, when it made a determination that the incident was reportable under 49 C. F. R. $195. 52(a)(3).\nRespondent contented it was not until morning that it became apparent that the spill area was larger\nthan originally observed and that it provided timely notification. Concern was expressed by\nRespondent as to whether the incident was the result of third party excavator damage. The cause of\nthe concern was the liquid located in the area on the side of an excavation company and pine tree\nnursery. Respondent also expressed concern about the impact of reporting the incident on December\n27, 2004, which could have been premature because of incomplete information.\nOPS opined that the nature of 49 C. F. R. fl195. 52 is two-fold, early warning and investigatory.\nTelephone notification to the NRC is an early warning for OPS, its State partner, and the National\nTransportation Safety Board (NTSB) to decide whether or not the federal government needs to\ninvestigate the incident for compliance and safety factors. OPS argued that notification must be\nmade as soon as practicable so that an evaluation can be made to determined whether continued\noperation of the pipeline will endanger or further endanger the public, property or the environment,\nOPS posed that it is important that OPS arrive at the site when the evidence is still present at the site,\nthe evidence is fresh and before the evidence is disturbed. OPS further argued that advisory bulletins\nhave been issued to owners and operators of gas distribution, gas transmission, and hazardous liquid\npipelines systems, and liquified natural gas facilities to ensure that telephonic reports of incidents\nto the NRC are prompt and at the earliest practicable moment following discovery. The bulletins\nalso clarify the term incident, earliest practicable moment and discuss telephonic reports made when\nearly information is incomplete. OPS also advised that Respondent is permitted to contact the NRC\nlater to withdraw a report.\nPre-enforcement efforts such as advisorv bulletins.\n, agency interpretations and 49 C. F. R. (190. 11\nprovide notice and enable Respondent to identify with certainty the standards with which OPS\nexpects operators to comply. 49 C. F. R. (190. 11 provides for informal guidance and interpretive\nassistance about compliance with pipeline safety regulations, 49 C. F. R. Parts 190-199.\n\n\n\nIf Respondent needs clarification, information on, and advice about compliance with pipeline safety\nregulations, then Respondent should take advantage of 49 C. F. R. II190. 11 to resolve ambiguities.\nIn furtherance, the issuance of advisory bulletins of \"Required Notification of National Response\nCenter\" basically addresses Respondent's concerns. ' The advisory bulletin recognizes that\ntelephonic reports are often made when the information on an incident is incomplete. The bulletin\nalso makes it clear that OPS expects an operator to provide update information during the emergency\nresponse phase, as new information changes the understanding of the nature, cause, and severity of\nthe incident. OPS understands that some hazardous liquid operators do not provide an estimated\nrelease amount when reporting an incident to the NRC. While the estimated spill size should be\ninitially reported, OPS also recognizes that there may be difficulty in estimating spill amounts,\nespecially if the release is underground or into water. An operator that provides update information\nto the NRC should tell the NRC representative if a previous report was filed for the incident and\nprovide the NRC Report Number of the original telephonic.\nRespondent's reservations or concerns about the reporting requirements do not negate the fact that\na violation occurred. During its initial arrival at approximately 3:35 p. m.\n, Respondent could have\ntaken advantage of 49 C. F. R. )190. 11 for informal guidance and interpretive assistance about\ncompliance withpipeline safetyregulations. PHMSA, OPS, has established awebsite on the Internet\nand a telephone line at OPS headquarters where operators can obtain information on and advice\nabout compliance. The website and phone line (202-366-0918) are staffed by OPS personnel from\n9: 00 a. m. through 5: 00 p. m.\n,\nEastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Even\nif Respondent was concerned about prematurely reporting the incident or an inaccurate spill estimate,\nRespondent could have made the telephonic report and filed an additional report during the\nemergency response phase if the circumstances and/or estimates changed. Respondent could have\ncalled the NRC to provide updated information to document the latest information. Respondent has\nnot shown any circumstance that justifies the failure to report to the NRC in a timely manner.\nAccordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C F R. II 19552 by failing to give telephonic notification\nto the National Response Center, at the earliest practicable moment, following discovery of an\nincident.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U. S. C. II 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. The Notice proposed a $5, 000 civil penalty for violation of 49 C. F. R. II 195. 52.\n67 FR 67060 (2002); 67 FR 67061 (2002).\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.\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000, as Respondent failed to give telephonic notification\nto the National Response Center (NRC), at the earliest practicable moment, following discovery of\nan incident on December 27, 2004. In response to the Notice and in support of its position,\nRespondent argued its initial evaluation suggested that it was not a reportable incident under 49\nC. F. R. )195. 52. However, Respondent conceded that the property damage including clean up cost\nwould meet $50, 000. On April 15, 1991 and September 6, 2002, Notices were issued by the\nDepartment of Transportation, OPS, reiterating that telephonic notification should be made within\none to two hours after discovery. OPS's ability to take corrective action and/or mitigate potential\nsafetyproblems is severely hampered byuntimelytelephonic notification of an incident. Respondent\nhas not shown any circumstance that would have prevented or justified it not taking prompt action\nto give telephonic notification to the NRC. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5, 000, for violation of 49 C. F. R.\n)195. 52.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to\n\"U. S, Department of Transportation\" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), P. O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City,\nOK 73125.\nFederal regulations (49 C. F. R. ) 89. 21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire transfer,\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $5, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U. S. C. tj 3717, 31 C. F. R. tj 901. 9 and 49 C. F. R. tj 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.\nUnder 49 C. F. R. ( 190. 215, Respondent has a right to petition for reconsideration of this Fina!\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 a 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 written request, grants\n\n\n\na stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\nNOV 15 2005\nDate Issued\nBrawl\ny A late Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\nFinal Order Hunt Refining Company CPF No 2-2005-5002.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nNOV 1 5 3105\nMr. David Carroll\nVice President and General Counsel\nHunt Refining Company\n100 Town Center Blvd., Suite 300\nTuscaloosa, AL 35406-1 829\nRE: CPF NO. 2-2005-5002\nDear Mr. Carroll:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $5,000.\nThe penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes\nautomatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document\nunder 49 C.F.R. 9 190.5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, OPS Southern Region\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of 1\nHunt Refining Company, 1\n1 CPF NO. 2-2005-5002\nRespondent.\nFINAL ORDER\nOn December 28,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 8 601 17, a representative of the Southern Region,\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) initiated an investigation of Respondent's report of an incident\ninvolving its 6-inch petroleum pipeline in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. As a result of the investigation, the\nDirector, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated March 2 1,2005, a Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207,\nthe Notice proposed finding that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.52 and proposed assessing\na civil penalty of $5,000 for the alleged violation.\nIn a letter dated March 29, 2005, Respondent submitted a Response to the Notice(Response).\nRespondent contested the allegation of violation, offered information to explain the allegation,\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated, and requested a hearing. A hearing was held\nvia telephone conference on May 4,2005.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $195.52 by not giving telephonic notification\nto the National Response Center (NRC), at the earliest practicable moment, following discovery of\nthe incident that occurred on December 27,2004. The incident involved a release of 300 barrels of\nNo.2-D fuel on Respondent's 6-inch petroleum pipeline three miles southwest of the Hunt Oil\nRefinery in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In response to a phone call from an adjacent property owner,\nRespondent arrived at the incident site at approximately 3:15 p.m on December 27, 2004 CST.\nAccording to the NRC and the Alabama Public Service Commission pipeline safety office,\nRespondent did not give the NRC telephonic notification of the incident until 10:20 a.m. EST on\nDecember 28, 2005, approximately 18 hours after discovery of the incident.\nIn response, Respondent conceded that it received notice from an adjacent property owner of a leak\nin the area of its 6-inch product pipeline on December 27,2004, at approximately 2:30 p.m. CST and\narrived at approximately 3:35 p.m. Respondent advised that upon arrival it observed bubbles\n\n\n\ncoming from water which covered the area of the pipeline right-of-way. Due to recent rains, there\nwas a great deal of water covering the area and it was not possible to tell the extent of the release.\nRespondent immediately shutdown the pipeline and began an evaluation of a wooded area.\nRespondent explained that it also recognized that there was standing water and that any additional\nrainfall might cause any product to migrate. Respondent further advised that it took a sample from\nthe nearest stream to confirm that no product had reached the stream. Respondent placed a boom\nat the stream, approximately '/4 mile away, because of the standing rainwater. Respondent then\nmobilized its vacuum truck to suction up the visible liquid, which appeared to be rainwater. This\nwas done just before the sun set at 4:5 1 p.m. on December 27,2004.\nRespondent determined, based upon its initial evaluation, that it was not a reportable incident under\n49 C.F.R. $195.52 because there was no death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; there was\nno fire or explosion; it did not appear that the property damage including clean up cost would meet\n$50,000; there was no pollution of any stream and it did not appear significant.\nRespondent argued that notification was made as soon as practicable, at 9:20 a.m. on December 28,\n2004, when it made a determination that the incident was reportable under 49 C.F.R. $ 195.52(a)(3).\nRespondent contented it was not until morning that it became apparent that the spill area was larger\nthan originally observed and that it provided timely notification. Concern was expressed by\nRespondent as to whether the incident was the result of third party excavator damage. The cause of\nthe concern was the liquid located in the area on the side of an excavation company and pine tree\nnursery. Respondent also expressed concern about the impact of reporting the incident on December\n27,2004, which could have been premature because of incomplete information.\nOPS opined that the nature of 49 C.F.R. 4195.52 is two-fold, early warning and investigatory.\nTelephone notification to the NRC is an early warning for OPS, its State partner, and the National\nTransportation Safety Board (NTSB) to decide whether or not the federal government needs to\ninvestigate the incident for compliance and safety factors. OPS argued that notification must be\nmade as soon as practicable so that an evaluation can be made to determined whether continued\noperation of the pipeline will endanger or further endanger the public, property or the environment.\nOPS posed that it is important that OPS arrive at the site when the evidence is still present at the site,\nthe evidence is fresh and before the evidence is disturbed. OPS further argued that advisory bulletins\nhave been issued to owners and operators of gas distribution, gas transmission, and hazardous liquid\npipelines systems, and liquified natural gas facilities to ensure that telephonic reports of incidents\nto the NRC are prompt and at the earliest practicable moment following discovery. The bulletins\nalso clarify the term incident, earliest practicable moment and discuss telephonic reports made when\nearly information is incomplete. OPS also advised that Respondent is permitted to contact the NRC\nlater to withdraw a report.\nPre-eaf~rcement effmtc such as advisory bulletins, agency interpretations and 49 C.F.R. fj 190.1 1\nprovide notice and enable Respondent to identify with certainty the standards with which OPS\nexpects operators to comply. 49 C.F.R. 5190.1 1 provides for informal guidance and interpretive\nassistance about compliance with pipeline safety regulations, 49 C.F.R. Parts 190-199.\n\n\n\nIf Respondent needs clarification, information on, and advice about compliance with pipeline safety\nregulations, then Respondent should take advantage of 49 C.F.R. § 190.1 1 to resolve ambiguities.\nIn furtherance, the issuance of advisory bulletins of \"Required Notification of National Response\nCenter\" basically addresses Respondent's concerns.' The advisory bulletin recognizes that\ntelephonic reports are often made when the information on an incident is incomplete. The bulletin\nalso makes it clear that OPS expects an operator to provide update information during the emergency\nresponse phase, as new information changes the understanding of the nature, cause, and severity of\nthe incident. OPS understands that some hazardous liquid operators do not provide an estimated\nrelease amount when reporting an incident to the NRC. While the estimated spill size should be\ninitially reported, OPS also recognizes that there may be difficulty in estimating spill amounts,\nespecially if the release is underground or into water. An operator that provides update information\nto the NRC should tell the NRC representative if a previous report was filed for the incident and\nprovide the NRC Report Number of the original telephonic.\nRespondent's reservations or concerns about the reporting requirements do not negate the fact that\na violation occurred. During its initial arrival at approximately 3:35 p.m., Respondent could have\ntaken advantage of 49 C.F.R. §190.11 for informal guidance and interpretive assistance about\ncompliance with pipeline safetyregulations. PHMSA, OPS, has established awebsite on the Internet\nand a telephone line at OPS headquarters where operators can obtain information on and advice\nabout compliance. The website and phone line (202-366-0918) are staffed by OPS personnel from\n9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Even\nif Respondent was concerned about prematurelyreporting the incident or an inaccurate spill estimate,\nRespondent could have made the telephonic report and filed an additional report during the\nemergency response phase if the circumstances andlor estimates changed. Respondent could have\ncalled the NRC to provide updated information to document the latest information. Respondent has\nnot shown any circumstance that justifies the failure to report to the NRC in a timely manner.\nAccordingly, I find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.52 by failing to give telephonic notification\nto the National Response Center, at the earliest practicable moment, following discovery of an\nincident.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense 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. The Notice proposed a $5,000 civil penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195 S2.\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.\nThe Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000, as Respondent failed to give telephonic notification\nto the National Response Center (NRC), at the earliest practicable moment, following discovery of\nan incident on December 27, 2004. In response to the Notice and in support of its position,\nRespondent argued its initial evaluation suggested that it was not a reportable incident under 49\nC.F.R. 9195.52. However, Respondent conceded that the property damage including clean up cost\nwould meet $50,000. On April 15, 1991 and September 6, 2002, Notices were issued by the\nDepartment of Transportation, OPS, reiterating that telephonic notification should be made within\none to two hours after discovery. OPS's ability to take corrective action andlor mitigate potential\nsafety problems is severely hampered by untimely telephonic notification of an incident. Respondent\nhas not shown any circumstance that would have prevented or justified it not taking prompt action\nto give telephonic notification to the NRC. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000, for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n5195.52.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to\n\"U.S. Department of Transportation\" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), P.O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City,\nOK 73125.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. $ 89.21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire transfer,\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account ofthe U.S. Treasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $5,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 3 1 U.S.C. $ 3717,3 1 C.F.R. 9 901.9 and49 C.F.R. 9 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 1 10 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.\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 a 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 written request, grants\n\n\n\na stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon receipt.\nNOV 1 5\nDate Issued\n' for Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28297}