{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220125007","title":"MARKWEST RANGER PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2012-06-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.440(a), 195.440(b), 195.440(i).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220125007.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220125007.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220125007","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220125007","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MARKWEST RANGER PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.440(a),  195.440(b),  195.440(i). The case was opened on 2012-06-19 and is reported as closed as of 2013-07-23. Proposed civil penalty: $17,600. Assessed civil penalty: $17,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220125007_closure letter_07232013_.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125007/220125007_closure%20letter_07232013_.pdf\n\n220125007_closure letter_07232013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125007/220125007_closure%20letter_07232013_text.pdf\n\n220125007_Corrected Final Order_04182013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125007/220125007_Corrected%20Final%20Order_04182013.pdf\n\n220125007_Corrected Final Order_04182013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125007/220125007_Corrected%20Final%20Order_04182013_text.pdf\n\n220125007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_06192012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125007/220125007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_06192012.pdf\n\n220125007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_06192012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125007/220125007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_06192012_text.pdf\n\n220125007_Operator Response and Request for Hearing_08202012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220125007/220125007_Operator%20Response%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_08202012.pdf\n\n220125007_closure letter_07232013_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 23, 2013\nMr. John Mollenkopf\nSenior Vice President, Chief Operations Officer\nMarkWest Ranger Pipeline Company\n1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2, Suite 700\nDenver, CO 80202-2126\nCPF 2-2012-5007\nDear Mr. Mollenkopf:\nOn April 18, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued to MarkWest Ranger Pipeline Company (MarkWest) a\nFinal Order in the above-referenced case. The Final Order included an assessed civil penalty\nand a Compliance Order (CO).\nOn July 22, 2013, the OPS Southern Region received MarkWest’s written response to the\nCompliance Order. Based on our review of this response and our confirmation that\nMarkWest has paid the civil penalty, we have determined that MarkWest has complied with\nthe terms of the Final Order. This case is now closed and no further action is necessary with\nrespect to the matters involved in this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2012-5007)\nand not to any other OPS cases, if any.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220125007_Corrected Final Order_04182013_text.pdf\n\nAPRIL 18, 2013\nMr. John Mollenkopf\nSenior Vice President, Chief Operations Officer\nMarkWest Ranger Pipeline Company, LLC\n1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2, Suite 700\nDenver, CO 80202-2126\nRe: CPF No. 2-2012-5007\nDear Mr. Mollenkopf:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $17,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nMarkWest Ranger Pipeline Company, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and\nthe terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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. Christopher Rimkus, Associate Counsel\n1515 Arapahoe St. Tower 1, Suite 1600, Denver, CO 80202-2137\nMr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS\nMr. Wayne Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, OPS, PHMSA\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nMarkWest Ranger Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2012-5007\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________ )\nCORRECTED FINAL ORDER\nOn March 28-29, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site inspection of the Public Awareness Program of MarkWest Ranger Pipeline\nCompany, LLC (MarkWest or Respondent) in Ashland, Kentucky. MarkWest’s Public\nAwareness Program covers MarkWest’s Appalachian Liquids Pipeline System (ALPS), which\ncomprises the 40.69-mile TranSandy Pipeline and the 36.03-mile Siloam Pipeline.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter\ndated June 19, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that MarkWest violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$17,600 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 20, 2012 (Response). MarkWest\ncontested one of the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on\nOctober 26, 2012 in the PHMSA Southern Region Office, Atlanta, Georgia, with an attorney\nfrom the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was\nrepresented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a post-hearing statement for the\nrecord, by letter dated November 30, 2012 (Closing).\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\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. § 195.440, which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.440 Public awareness.\n(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public\neducation program that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum\nInstitute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see §\n195.3).\n(b) The operator's program must follow the general program recommendations of\nAPI RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and characteristics of the operator's pipeline\nand facilities.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440 by failing to assess the unique\ncharacteristics and attributes of its pipeline facilities in its continuing public education program.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that MarkWest distributed baseline message or continuing public\neducation brochures to the affected public, excavators, emergency responders, and public\nofficials for calendar years 2009, 2010, and 2011 that did not identify the product transported as\na natural gas liquid (NGL) or as a highly volatile liquid (HVL). Furthermore, the Region\nalleged that the brochures distributed in 2011 erroneously identified the product transported in\nALPS as natural gas rather than HVL. In the Notice and at the hearing, the Region stated that\nMarkWest’s references to natural gas in its public education program materials violated\n§ 195.440(b) because natural gas has different characteristics and attributes than HVL.\nFurthermore, at the hearing, the Region argued that Respondent’s failure to properly describe\nHVL characteristics and inclusion of incorrect information could endanger the public and\npotentially cause incorrect response(s) to a pipeline release.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, MarkWest explained that it provided baseline messages (i.e.\npublic awareness information via brochures) in collaboration with other operators for the years\nindicated above. MarkWest stated that the collaborative brochures did mention the presence of\nHVLs and that, from a public information perspective, the characteristics of natural gas and HVL\nare similar, so the references to natural gas were not misleading. MarkWest also argued that it\nbelieved its collaborative approach was less confusing to landowners who may live near various\nrights of way because the landowners or affected public might otherwise be inundated with\ninformation from different operators.\nWith respect to MarkWest’s arguments about the benefits of its collaborative approach, the\nSouthern Region maintained that the intent of the regulation, rather than educating the public at\nlarge about general pipeline safety, is to educate specific targeted audiences about pipelines that\nmay affect them. I agree that § 195.440(b) requires that operators provide specific information\nabout its facilities. On the other hand, API RP 1162 does encourage operators to, “convey\nimportant information about the company, the industry, pipeline safety,” etc. to its target\naudiences. See API RP 1162, 5.1.1. Therefore, the presence of information about different types\nof pipelines does not, on its own, violate the regulation.\nTo determine whether violations occurred, it is necessary to examine the content of MarkWest’s\npublic education materials for each year listed, to evaluate whether: 1.) the material described\nunique attributes of MarkWest’s ALPS pipeline, 2.) recipients of the brochure would be able to\ndistinguish between information relevant to ALPS and general pipeline information, and 3.)\ninformation was accurate.\n\n\n\n3\nMarkWest’s 2009 brochure does not list NGLs or HVLs as the product transported in its\npipeline, nor does it include HVLs in its list of pipeline products included in the section entitled,\n“Potential Hazards of Pipeline Products.” This list includes hazardous liquids, refined products,\ncrude oil, natural gas, oxygen, chemicals, etc. In the section entitled, “Recognizing a Pipeline\nLeak,” the brochure lists the following various signs of a pipeline leak, “a pool of liquid on the\nground near a pipeline, a dense white cloud or fog over a pipeline, . . .an unusual dry spot in\notherwise moist field, . . .an unusual smell or gaseous odor . . ., frozen ground at the pipeline in\nwarm weather, . . .” The “white cloud” reference is an accurate description of an HVL release,\nbut a reader of the materials would not be able to distinguish that description from the others\nlisted as the one relevant to ALPS. Furthermore, the “white cloud” reference is the only\ninformation specific reference to HVLs in the 2009 brochure.1 The brochure did not state that\nHVLs are heavier than air and can settle in low lying areas, causing increased ignition hazard\nand asphyxiation risk, nor did the brochure state that HVLs cause eye and nose irritation.\nMarkWest’s 2010 public education brochure provides more information to the affected public of\nthe unique attributes and characteristics of its HVL facility but still exhibits problems. The\nbrochure does not specifically mention the ALPS or that the relevant pipeline transports HVLs. It\ndescribes how to recognize leaks from different types of pipelines, including HVLs and other\nproducts, such as natural gas and landfill gas. The brochure correctly describes a “vaporous fog”\nas one sign of a pipeline leak. Furthermore, it states, “HVL vapors are heavier than air and can\ncollect in low areas such as ditches, sewers, etc.” Despite this useful information, the brochure\nalso states, “Highly Volatile Liquids (HVL’s) can be odorless and colorless in their natural state\nand most are considered irritants to eyes and nose. Commercial odorants are added to many\nHVL’s to assist in detection of a leak.” While the above statement may be true, the NGLs/HVLs\nin the ALPS are not odorized, so the statement that “Commercial odorants are added to many\nHVL’s to assist in the detection of a leak” could lead to the expectation by recipients of the\nbrochure that the ALPS is odorized.2 Therefore, in the absence of the distinctive “rotten\neggs”/mercaptan smell, members of the public might not detect a leak or might take longer to\ndetect/report a leak of the ALPS.\nFinally, MarkWest’s 2011 public education materials contain further improvements from the\nprevious years but also a major flaw. The first page of the brochure contains only information\nrelevant to HVLs, including that HVLs are heavier than air. Unlike the prior years, the first page\ndoes not include information specific to other pipeline products. The brochure also includes the\nfollowing accurate statement about odorization, “Natural Gas and Highly Volatile Liquids are\ncolorless, tasteless and odorless unless commercial odorants or Mercaptan is added.” However,\npage 4 of the 2011 brochure includes a material safety data sheet (MSDS) for natural gas, which\nis incorrect. The specific inclusion of the natural gas MSDS and no other MSDS would give the\nimpression that it is specific to the ALPS. The MSDS describes natural gas as “Lighter than air\nand will generally rise and dissipate. May gather in a confined space and travel to a source of\n1 I say “only ‘possible’ reference to HVLs” because neither HVLs nor NGLs are explicitly mentioned in the 2009\nbrochure.\n2 MarkWest email correspondence, March 3, 2013.\n\n\n\n4\nignition.”3 This information is inaccurate and potentially dangerous, as HVLs are not lighter\nthan air, will not necessarily dissipate, and may gather in areas other than “a confined space.”\nIn its post-hearing submission (Closing), MarkWest argued that PHMSA’s allegation of violation\nwas based on a “subjective standard” that PHMSA interpreted inconsistently with its plain\nmeaning. According to MarkWest, the regulation does not require that the educational materials\nname the product and only requires general pipeline safety information that includes some\ninformation relevant to its facilities, even if the relevant information is presented alongside non-\nrelevant information. MarkWest also argued that its brochures complied with the “letter of the\nlaw” because each included some information relevant to an HVL pipeline release. More\nspecifically, MarkWest pointed to mention in the 2009 brochure of “a dense white cloud or fog\nover a pipeline,” and a “vaporous fog” in the 2010 brochure. It argued that this language,\napplicable to an HVL release, described what a member of the public might witness were a\nrelease to occur, and that this is the type of “unique attributes and characteristics” the regulation\nis referring to. MarkWest acknowledged at the hearing that the inclusion of the natural gas\nMSDS was “misleading and a mistake,” but it maintained that many of the attributes of natural\ngas and NGLs are the same and that the MSDS inclusion, “did not detract from the information\npresented in the brochure.”4\nI am not persuaded by MarkWest’s position. Section 195.440(b) requires that operators include\ninformation about the “unique attributes and characteristics of the operator's pipeline and\nfacilities” (emphasis added). This standard cannot be met by providing general pipeline safety\ninformation alone or relevant information alongside non-relevant information as MarkWest did\nin its 2009 and 2010 brochures. More specifically, the purpose of the 2009 brochure was plainly\nto provide general pipeline safety information and was not specific to HVL pipelines; the\ndescriptions of various types of pipeline releases such as crude oil alongside description of an\nHVL release would not convey to the resident that the reason it was receiving the materials was\nthe presence of an HVL pipeline. Also, the presentation of such different products/risks together\nis likely to result in confusion or the reader forgetting much of the material due to “information\noverload,” further diminishing the likelihood that the reader will come away with an\nunderstanding of the “unique attributes and characteristics” of the pipeline that affects it.\nFurthermore, although the 2010 brochure included more information about HVLs, it still\nincluded information about natural gas, which has different attributes and characteristics. The\n2010 brochure also exemplifies why providing materials that are not facility-specific is risky.\nThe statement in that brochure that many HVL facilities are odorized is relevant to HVLs and not\nnecessarily incorrect. However, given that the NGLs in the ALPS are not odorized, the statement\nis misleading and potentially dangerous. Finally, the 2011 brochure violated the regulation due\nto the inclusion of the incorrect MSDS that stated that natural gas is, “Lighter than air and will\ngenerally rise and dissipate.”\n3 MarkWest also provided PHMSA with a copy of a letter, dated 2011, for school administrators that included the\nerroneous “Natural Gas” MSDS, including the incorrect statement regarding ALPS, “Lighter than air and will\ngenerally rise and dissipate. May gather in a confined space and travel to a source of ignition.”\n4 Response at 2.\n\n\n\n5\nTherefore, the presence of general pipeline information alongside information relevant to the\noperator’s facilities can serve to confuse or diffuse the relevant information about the unique\nattributes and characteristics of the operator’s facilities. In that case, the reader comes away with\nno specific information about the pipeline that could affect him/her, and he/she may even\nbecome confused about what to look/hear/smell for in identifying a leak. On the other hand, if\nMarkWest had specified that the ALPS carried NGLs, it could have then provided information\nabout the characteristics of NGLs and supplemental information about other pipelines if it\ndesired to educate about general pipeline safety.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and legal issues presented, I find MarkWest\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b) because its public education materials failed to properly assess\nthe unique attributes and characteristics of its pipeline and facilities when the materials contained\neither only general pipeline information (i.e. relevant information comingled with non-relevant\ninformation) or inaccurate information about the ALPS pipeline.\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.5 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 $17,600 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.440(b), for failing to assess the unique characteristics and attributes of its pipeline facilities\nin its continuing public education program.\nIn its Closing, MarkWest argued that its efforts to comply with the regulation were “in good\nfaith.” PHMSA agrees that MarkWest acted in good faith and calculated the proposed civil\npenalty accordingly. MarkWest did not specifically challenge the civil penalty or request a\nreduction, as it focused its arguments on whether a violation occurred. However, I will briefly\nevaluate PHMSA’s considerations in determining the proposed civil penalty. With respect to the\n“nature” of these violations, PHMSA considered the fact that this was mainly a records violation,\nrather than a maintenance or equipment violation. Next, for the “circumstances,” PHMSA\nconsidered that this violation occurred three years in a row. With respect to “gravity,” PHMSA\nconsidered that although it was a recurring violation, the threat to safety or the environment was\nminimal. As for “culpability,” PHMSA noted that MarkWest did make good faith attempts to\n5 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.\n\n\n\n6\ncomply with the regulation, despite the violation.\nAfter review of the record and the assessment criteria, I find that the civil penalty proposed in the\nNotice is reasonable.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $17,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Final Order.\nPayment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number\nfor this case), made payable to “U.S. Department of Transportation,” to the Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-\n341), P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R.\n§ 89.21(b)(3)) also permit payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions\nare contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to:\nFinancial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The Financial\nOperations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $17,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. §§ 195.440. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation\nof hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to\nensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.440 (Item 1), Respondent must develop and\ndistribute new baseline message material to affected municipalities, school districts,\nbusinesses, and residents near pipeline facility locations that adequately addresses the\nunique attributes and characteristics of the NGLs transported in the ALPS.\n2. Provide written documentation to Director, Southern Region, within 90 days\nfollowing your receipt of the Final Order, that Compliance Order Item 1 has been\ncompleted.\n3. It is requested that MarkWest maintain documentation of the safety improvement\n\n\n\n7\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector, Southern Region. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements, additions, and\nother changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with the required items upon a written\nrequest timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 2 and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195.440 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warning(s) were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440(i) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have program\ndocumentation, evaluation results, or other records to demonstrate that it had\nconducted a substantive review of Respondent’s Public Awareness Program, as\nrequired by API RP 1162 and § 195.400; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to properly\ndevelop and implement a written continuing public education program that\nfollows API RP 1162.\nMarkWest did not contest these allegations. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a\nsubsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\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. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n220125007_closure letter_07232013_.pdf\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n233 Peachtree Street Ste. 600\nAtlanta, GA 30303\nPipeline and\nAdministration\nHazardous Materials Safety\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJuly 23, 2013\nMr. John Mollenkopf\nSenior Vice President, Chief Operations Officer\nMark West Ranger Pipeline Company\n1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2, Suite 700\nDenver, CO 80202-2126\nCPF 2-2012-5007\nDear Mr. Mollenkopf:\nOn April 18, 2013, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued to Mark West Ranger Pipeline Company (MarkWest) a\nFinal Order in the above-referenced case. The Final Order included an assessed civil penalty\nand a Compliance Order (CO).\nOn July 22, 2013, the OPS Southern Region received Mark West's written response to the\nCompliance Order. Based on our review of this response and our confirmation that\nMark West has paid the civil penalty, we have determined that Mark West has complied with\nthe terms of the Final Order. This case is now closed and no further action is necessary with\nrespect to the matters involved in this case.\nPlease be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2012-5007)\nand not to any other OPS cases, if any.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\n-\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region","truncated":false,"body_characters":27831}