{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220056012","title":"TAMPA BAY PIPELINE CO. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-09-13","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 195.505(c), 195.505(d), 195.505(e), 195.505(f), 195.505(g), 195.507(a), 195.509(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056012","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220056012","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TAMPA BAY PIPELINE CO.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.505(a),  195.505(b),  195.505(c),  195.505(d),  195.505(e),  195.505(f),  195.505(g),  195.507(a),  195.509(a). The case was opened on 2005-09-13 and is reported as closed as of 2008-04-22. Proposed civil penalty: $71,500. Assessed civil penalty: $71,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220056012_Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration_03312008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056012/220056012_Decision%20on%20the%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_03312008.pdf\n\n220056012_decision on the petition for reconsideration_03312008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056012/220056012_decision%20on%20the%20petition%20for%20reconsideration_03312008_text.pdf\n\n220056012_Final Order_12012006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056012/220056012_Final%20Order_12012006.pdf\n\n220056012_Petition For Reconsideration_12212006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056012/220056012_Petition%20For%20Reconsideration_12212006.pdf\n\n220056012_Final Order_12012006.pdf\n\n@\nU.5. Deporlment\nof Tronsporlotion\nPipeline ond Hozordous\nMoleriots Sofety Administrolion\n400 Seventh Street, S,W.\nWashington, D.C, 20590\nDEC - I zrm\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, Fl,34242\nRe: CPF No.2-2005-6012\nDear Mr. Rose:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nin the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$71 ,500. It further finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty is paid, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under\n49 C.F.R. € 190.5.\nSincerely,\ntu-\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nPHMSA, Office of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nMs. Lin<ia Daugherty, Director, Souihern Region, OPS;\nMr. Glenn I). Howell, General Manager. Tampa Bay Pipeline Company\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAF'ETY\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company'\nRespondent\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\nCPF No.2-2003-6012\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 17-18, 2005, pursuart to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-\nsite pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's Operator Qualification (OQ) procedwes and\nrecords at its Tampa, Florida office. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southem Region,\nOPS issued to Respondent, by letter dated September I 3, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation,\nProposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F'R.\n$ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R.\nPart I 95 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $71 ,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice\nalso proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. '.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated Oclober 7,2005 (Response). Respondent\nstated that it intended to revise its OQ program in accordance with the Proposed Compliance\nOrder, but requested a hearing regarding the Notice and the Proposed Civil Penalty. The hearing\nwashefdonMarch 25,2006 inAtlanta, Georgia. Afterthishearing,Respondentoffered\nadditional information on April 25,2006.\nF'INDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem I in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(a) by:\nA. failing to establish a list identif,ving its OQ \"covered tasks\" by the applicable deadline of\nApril27,2001;\nB. failing to include all covered tasks in the list once it was established; and\nC. failing to review the covered task list using the four-part test with Part 195 operation and\nmaintenance activities.\n\n\n\nRespondent did not contest allegations B or C. With respect to A, the allegation that Respondent\nfailed to establish a list identifying its OQ covered tasks by the applicable deadline, Respondent\nstated at the hearing that it had written a \"redbook framework\" for developing an OQ program\nprior to Aprll27,2001, but acknowledged that this document was actually an outline of only a\nfew pages that merely reiterated the OQ regulations in Subpart G of C.F.R. Part 195. Therefore,\nRespondent was unable to document that it had an OQ program for its pipeline system completed\nand in place by April 27,2001 when required. Respondent then stated that it had reason to\nbelieve that it had generated a covered task list in December of 2002 and offered a CD that it\nclaimed showed that these tasks were saved on its computer between December 11,2002 and\nJanuary 2,2003. Respondent's claim, however, contradicts a slatement made by Respondent's\nown OQ Plan Administrator to OPS at the time of the inspection that the covered task list was\nnot completed until 2005 after it was received from a sister company. Moreover, these dates are\nstill substantially later than the Aprrl27,2001 deadline set forth in the relevant regulation.\nRespondeni faile<i to produce any verifiable contemporaneous documentation or other persuasive\nevidence to show that it had established a list identiffing its OQ covered tasks by Apil27 ,\n2O0l\nwhen required. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(a) as described in the\nNotice.\nItem2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(b) by failing to have\nOQ provisions in place to ensure that contractor individuals performing covered tasks on its\npipeline were qualified, and failing to include provisions for the use of training to qualify or re-\nqualify individuals to perform covered tasks. Respondent did not contest this item.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(b) as more fully described in the Notice.\nItem 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(b) by failing to have\nOQ provisions in place to ensure that individuals performing covered tasks on its pipeline were\nqualified to recognizc and react to abnormal operating conditions (AOCs). At the hearing,\nRespondent repeated its statement that it had written a \"redbook framework\" for developing an\nOQ program prior to the April 27,2001 deadline. Respondent, however, failed to demonstrate\nthat it had an OQ program addressing the requirements associated with AOCs in place when\nrequired. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(b) as described in the Notice.\nItem 4 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(c) by failing to have\nOQ provisions in place to ensure that any covered task performed by an individual who is not\nqualified is done only ifdirected and observed by an individual that is qualified. Respondent did\nnot contest this item. Accordingly, I find that Respclndent violated $ 195.505(c) as more fully\ndescribed in the Notice.\nItem 5 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(d) by failing to have\nOQ provisions in place to evaluate an individual whose performance of a covered task may have\ncontributed to an accident. Respondent did not contest this item. Accordingly, I irnd that\nRespondent violated $ 195.505(d) as more fully described in the Notice.\n\n\n\nItem 6 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. g 195.505(e) by failing to have\nOQ provisions in place to evaluate an individual for the purpose of determining whether the\nindividual is no longer qualifi.ed to perform a covered task. Respondent did not contest this item.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(e) as more fully described in the Notice.\nItem 7 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R- $ 195.505(0 by failing to have\nOQ provisions in place to identiff and communicate changes that affect covered tasks to\nindividuals performing tlrose covered tasks. Respondent did not contest this item. Accordingly,\nI find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(f) as more fully described in the Notice.\nItem 8 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. g 195.505(9) by failing to have\nOQ provisions in place identifying the re-evaluation intervals for covered tasks. In its post-\nhearing submittal, Respondent asserted that \"The TBPL management had elected to do re-\nevaluations every five years; therefore, re-evaluation was not required until Decemb et,20A7.\"\nThis response, ho'wever, does not demonstrate that re-evaluatiorr intervals had been established\nwhen required, much less document any supporting justifications for interval length. Respondent\nfailed to demonstrate that it had an OQ program addressing the re-evaluation intervals !n place\nwhen required. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated g 195.505(g) as described in the\nNotice.\nItem 9 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. g 195.507 by:\nA. failing to maintain qualification records including the dates of current qualification;\nB. failing to maintain qualification records identifying the covered tasks of each individual;\nC. failing to maintain qualification records including the qualilication methods and criteria;\nand\nD. failing to maintain qualification records for contractor individuals who had performed\ncovered tasks on the pipeline.\nRespondent did not contest allegations B or C. With respect to A, the allegation that Respondent\nfailed to maintain qualification records including the dates of current qualification, Respondent\nacknowledged that these records contained no dates. With respect to D, the allegation that\nRespondent failed to maintain qualification records for contractor individuals who had\nperformed covered tasks on the pipeline, Respondent acknowledged that at the time, it failed to\nproduce any records that would have demonstrated that contractor individuals had been qualified\non tasks they performed on its pipeline prior to performing them. Accordingly, I find that\nRespondent violated $ 195.507 by failing to maintain the specified records during the relevant\ntime period.\nItem 10 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.509 by failing to have an\nOQ program completed and in place by April 2l ,2001. Respondent again relied on its argument\nthat it had a \"redbook framework\" in place by the April 27,2001 deadline. Once again,\nhowever, Respondent conceded that this document was actually an outline of only a few pages\nthat merely reiterated the OQ regulations in Subpart G of C.F.R. Part 195^ Respondent failed to\nproduce any verifiable contemporaneous documentation or other persuasive evidence to show\n\n\n\nthat it had a complete oQ program in place by April 27,2001 when required.r Accordingly, I\nfind that Respondent violated g 195.509 as described in the Notice.\nThese findings ofviolation 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 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.\n49 U.S.C. g 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,\ndegree cfRespondent's culpability, history ofRespondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve coqpliance, the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nWith respect to Item 1.A, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent's failure\nto establish a list identifuing its OQ covered tasks by the applicable deadline of April 27,2001 ln\naccordance with $ 195.505(a). Having a complete OQ program in place to ensure that\nindividuals performing covered tasks are properly qualified is an important part of pipeline\nsafety. Respondent's pipeline system is located in urban and suburban areas and the\nconsequences ofany errors that cause or conftibute to a release from the pipeline could be\nserious. Establishing the covered tasks on a given pipeline system is akey step in developing\nany OQ progam because in order to assess the effectiveness ofan operator's process for\nestablishing that an individual is qualified to perform a given task, that task and its criteria must\nbe available to compare against the individual's previous evaluations and qualifications.\nRespondent has presented no information that would warant a reduction in the civil penalty\namormt proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered lhe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of$5,000 for its violation\nof$ 195.505(a).\nWith respect to Item 3, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent's failure to\nhave OQ provisions to ensure that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified to\nrecognize and react to abnormal operating conditions in accordance with $ 195.505(b). Having a\ncomplete OQ program in place to ensure that individuals performing covered tasks are properly\nqualified is an important part of pipeline safety. Respondent's pipeline system is located in\nurban and suburban areas and the consequences of any errors that cause or contribute to a release\nfrom the pipeline could be serious. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant\na reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\n' Respondent failed to make this showing at the time of the inspection and again failed to make this showing during\nthe hearing. Respondent did submit an undated copy of the OQ plan that it ultimately developed with its post-\nhearing materials, but this plan was not in place during the relevant time period of April 27,200]..\n\n\n\npenalty of$5,000 for its violation ofg 195.505(b).\nWith respect to Item 8, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $4,500 for Respondent's failure to\nhave OQ provisions identifoing the re-evaluation intervals for covered tasks in accordance with $\n195.505(9). Having a complete OQ program in place to ensure that individuals performing\ncovered tasks are properly qualified is an important part ofpipeline safety, Respondent's\npipeline system is located in urban and suburban areas and the consequences ofany errors that\ncause or contribute to a release from the pipeline could be serious. Respondent has presented no\ninformation that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for\nthis violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment cdteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $4,500 for its violation of $ I 95.505(9).\nWith respect to Item 9.A, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $4,500 for Respondent's failure\nto maintain qualification records including the dates of current qualification in accordance with $\n195.507. Having a complete OQ program in place to ensure that individuais performing covered\ntasks are properly qualified is an important part ofpipeline safety. Violations of recordkeeping\nrequirements are serious because in the absence of complete and reliable records, neither a\npipeline operator nor OPS can properly evaluate and oversee the effectiveness ofa safety\nprogram. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil\npenalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of$4,500 for\nits violation of$ 195.507.\nWith respect to Item 9.D, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,500 for Respondent's failure\nto maintain qualification records for contractor individuals who had performed covered tasks on\nthe pipeline in accordance with $ 195.507. Having a complete OQ program in place to ensure\nthat individuals performing covered tasks are properly qualified is an important part of pipeline\nsafety. Violations of recordkeeping requirements are serious because in the absence of complete\nand reliable records, neither a pipeline operator nor OPS can properly evaluate and oversee lhe\neffectiveness of a safety program. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant\na reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Nofice for this violation. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $2,500 for its violation of $ 195.507.\nWith respect to Item 10, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,000 for Respondent's failure\nto have an OQ program in place by April 27 ,2001 in accordance with $ 195.509. Having a\ncomplete OQ program in place to ensure that individuals performing coveied tasks are properly\nqualified is an important part of pipeline safety. Respondent's pipeline system is located in\nurban and suburban areas and the consequences of any errors that cause or contribute to a release\nfrom the pipeline could be serious. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant\na reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $50,000 for its violation of $ 195.509.\n\n\n\nBased on the forgoing, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a total civil penalty of $71 ,500. Respondent has the ability to pay this penalty\nwithout adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. $ 89.21 (bX3)) require this payment 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 (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $71,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. S 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 I l0 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civii penalty\nmay result in referral of lhe matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a Compliance Order specifying actions to be taken by Respondent to\ncorrect the violations. Under 49 U.S.C. $ 601 l8(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation ofhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director,\nSouthem Region, OPS, has indicated that Respondent has provided documentation\ndemonstrating that it has now corrected the deficiencies in its OQ program as specified in the\nProposed.Compliance Order. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to\nthese violations, it is unnecessary to include compliance terms in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. $ 190.21 5, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days\nof Respondent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s).\nThe hling of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However\nif Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived, The terms and\ni+(ons of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nnFC - l ,nn.r\nI L U I I U\nv\no\nwillk\niate Administrator\nfor line Safety\nDate Issued\n\n220056012_decision on the petition for reconsideration_03312008_text.pdf\n\nU S Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Ave S E\nWashington DC 20590\nM~R3 1 ÃO8\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UES TED\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Bay Pipeline Corporation\nd/b/a Tampa Bay Pipeline Company\nP. O, Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242-5236\nRe: CPF No. 2-2005-6012\nDear Mr. Rose:\nEnclosed is the decision on the petition for reconsideration filed by Tampa Bay Pipeline\nCompany in the above-referenced case. For the reasons specified therein, the petition is denied.\nPayment of the $71, 500 civil penalty is due within 20 days of service. Your receipt of this\ndecision constitutes service under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Admmistrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\n\n\n\nU. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nTampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, )\nd/b/a Tampa Bay Pipeline Company, )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nPetitioner\n)\nCPF No. 2-2005-6012\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nOn December 1, 2006, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60112, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline\nSafety issued a Final Order in this case finding that Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, doing\nbusiness as Tampa Bay Pipeline Company (Tampa Bay or Petitioner); had committed various\nviolations of the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations set forth in 49 C. F. R. Part 195. The\nFinal Order assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $71, 500. By letter dated December 21,\n2006, pursuant to 49 C, F. R. ) 190, 215, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration seeking a\nreduction or elimination of the civil penalty on the grounds that its payment would constitute a\nfinancial hardship on the company. Petitioner did not request reconsideration of the findings of\nviolation.\nPursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60122 and 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 225, in determining the amount of a civil\npenalty, I must consider, among other things, an operator's ability to pay the penalty and any\neffect it may have on the operator's ability to continue doing business. An operator requesting\nreconsideration of a civil penalty on the grounds that it would constitute a financial hardship has\nthe burden of demonstrating the validity of its claim.\nThe petition filed in this case, however, lacked sufficient evidence of Petitioner's actual financial\ncondition to enable the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to\nevaluate Petitioner's claim of financial hardship. Rather than simply denying the petition\nwithout further proceedings, as permitted under 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 215(e), PHMSA requested\nPetitioner, by letter dated January 26, 2007, to submit its \"most recent financial statement\" to\nsupport its claim. In its response dated February 9, 2007, Petitioner indicated that it did not have\nseparate audited financial information, as the information was contained in a combined statement\nand the numbers were not broken out. Instead, Petitioner submitted information concerning\nthroughput levels on its pipeline system.\nBy letter dated February 15, 2008, the Office of Chief Counsel again requested that Petitioner\nsubmit accurate and reliable information on the financial condition of Tampa Bay, Specifically,\n\n\n\nthe letter requested that Tampa Bay provide the most recent auCkted financial statement for\nPetitioner, or its parent corporation, or other affiliated entity upon which Tampa Bay relies for\nfinancing. Petitioner was further advised that a failure to provide such information would be\ngrounds for a denial of its petition. In its response dated March 3, 2008, Petitioner again failed\nto submit its most recent audited financial statement. Instead, Petitioner provided a one-page\ntable showing the income and expenses of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, as of December 31,\n2006. Petitioner indicated the numbers in the table were accurate \"to the best of [the company's]\nknowledge. \"\nThe Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U. S. C. ) 60122, et seq) expressly provide that in\ndetermining civil money penalties, PHMSA must consider a pipeline operator's ability to pay\nand whether a proposed penalty will affect an operator's ability to continue doing business. For\na petitioner to assert a successful claim of financial hardship, it must provide PHMSA with the\nmeans by which the agency can accurately determine the company's true financial condition.\nThis is why the agency requested Petitioner's most recent audited financial statement, which\nshould provide a current, comprehensive, and reliable picture of the company's financial\ncondition, including assets, liabilities, income, expenses, and cash flow. PHMSA has twice\ngiven Tampa Bay an opportunity to substantiate its claim of financial hardship but Petitioner has\nstill failed to produce credible evidence. Therefore, the agency has no alternative but to deny the\npetition for reconsideration.\nAccordingly, payment in full of the civil penalty assessed in the Final Order ($71, 500) is now\ndue and must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C. F. R. ) 89. 21(b)(3))\nrequire this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications\nSystem (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the\nenclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations\nDivision (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center,\nP. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $71, 500 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\ntho'se same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6/o) 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 United\nStates District Coiut.\nThis decision on reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\nMAR 3 1 N08\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nDate Issued","truncated":false,"body_characters":26838}