# ENMARK ENERGY, INC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 220136002
- **title:** ENMARK ENERGY, INC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2013-03-11
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.440(a), 195.440(b), 195.440(e).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136002.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136002.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136002
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220136002
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ENMARK ENERGY, INC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.440(a),  195.440(b),  195.440(e). The case was opened on 2013-03-11 and is reported as closed as of 2013-06-13. Proposed civil penalty: $20,000. Assessed civil penalty: $20,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

220136002_Final Order_06132013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136002/220136002_Final%20Order_06132013.pdf

220136002_Final Order_06132013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136002/220136002_Final%20Order_06132013_text.pdf

220136002_NOPV_PCP_03112013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136002/220136002_NOPV_PCP_03112013.pdf

220136002_NOPV_PCP_03112013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136002/220136002_NOPV_PCP_03112013_text.pdf

220136002_Operator Response_04092013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136002/220136002_Operator%20Response_04092013.pdf

220136002_Final Order_06132013_text.pdf

JUNE 13, 2013
Mr. Connell R. Rader
President
Enmark Energy, Inc.
104 First Choice Drive, Suite A
Madison, MS 39110
Re: CPF No. 2-2013-6002
Dear Mr. Rader:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $20,000. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of
the full penalty amount, by wire transfer, dated April 9, 2013. This enforcement action is now
closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,
or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, OPS
Mr. Alan Mayberry, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Enmark Energy, Inc., ) CPF No. 2-2013-6002
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On October 16, 2012 and October 17, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Enmark
Energy, Inc., (Enmark or Respondent) in Madison, Mississippi. Enmark operates and maintains
over one hundred miles of high-pressure natural gas and carbon dioxide lines, in the state of
Mississippi.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated March 11, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil
Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Enmark had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.440(a), 195.440(b) and 195.440(e); and proposed
assessing a civil penalty of $20,000 for the alleged violations.
Enmark responded to the Notice by letter dated April 9, 2013 (Response). The company did not
contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $20,000, as provided in
49 C.F.R. § 190.227, on April 9, 2013. Payment of the penalty serves to close the case with
prejudice to Respondent.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Enmark did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated
49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), which states:
1 See, http://enmarkenergy.com/About.html, last accessed May 9, 2013.



2
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written
continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in
the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)
1162 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to implement a
written continuing public education program meeting the general program requirements of
API RP 1162 and its written procedures. The Notice alleged that although Enmark developed its
Public Awareness and Damage Prevention Program (PADPP), the company did not properly
implement its program in accordance with its written procedures, Section 8.2.3, “Measuring
Program Effectiveness.” Specifically, Enmark’s PADPP, Section 8.2.3, requires that the
company perform an annual review of its program by internal self-assessments, third-party audits
or regulatory inspections. Enmark was unable to provide any records or other documentation to
demonstrate that it had reviewed its public awareness program to ensure proper implementation.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to implement a
written continuing public education program meeting the general requirement of API RP 1162
and its written procedures that required an annual review of its PADPP to ensure proper
implementation.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), which states:
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written
continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in
the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)
1162 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to implement a
written continuing public education program that followed the guidance provided in
API RP 1162 and Section 8.3 of its PADPP procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Enmark failed to perform a program effectiveness evaluation as set forth in Section 8.3 of its
procedures. Although Enmark had surveyed and collected data from others regarding its public
education program, the collection of data did not constitute a program effectiveness evaluation of
Enmark’s public education program. Further, the information collected did not relate to
Enmark’s carbon dioxide pipelines nor was there any analysis of the data collected. Respondent
did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to perform a program
effectiveness evaluation.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b), which states:
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
(b) The operator’s program must follow the general program
recommendations of API RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and



3
characteristics of the operator’s pipeline and facilities.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b) by failing to implement a
continuing public education program that assessed the unique attributes and characteristics of
Enmark’s pipeline system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that from 2007 until 2011 Enmark
provided brochures to the public that did not describe the types of products it transported or the
unique attributes and characteristics of the products in Enmark’s pipelines. Enmark transports
carbon dioxide but the brochures provided information about the transportation of petroleum
products. These products have significantly different attributes and characteristics. Respondent
did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b) by failing to provide the target
audience with the proper information regarding the unique attributes and characteristics of its
pipelines.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(e), which states:
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
(e) The program must include activities to advise affected
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline
facility locations.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(e) by failing to include in its
public education program baseline message materials, sufficient information for local
municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents to be able to locate and identify
Enmark’s pipelines and failing to provide them with the appropriate contact information for the
company. Specifically, the Notice alleged that from 2007 to 2011, Enmark failed to properly
identify the location of its pipelines, only providing information regarding the National Pipeline
Mapping System and how someone could obtain the location of its pipelines. Additionally,
Enmark failed to provide its necessary contact information should an emergency arise, only
providing public service contact information. Enmark was required to provide information
regarding the location of its pipelines and at least provide its name and contact information as the
entity to call should an issue arise regarding its pipeline. Respondent did not contest this
allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(e) by failing to provide the necessary information
regarding its pipelines and who to contact should and incident occur.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any



4
related series of violations.2 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under
49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect
that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of
Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may
consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of
subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total
civil penalty of $20,000 for the violations cited above.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), for failing to implement a written continuing public education program
that followed the guidance provided in API RP 1162 and Section 8.3 of its PADPP procedures.
Enmark paid the proposed penalty, which serves to close this Item with prejudice and authorizes
PHMSA to make a finding of violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for Respondent’s violation of
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b), for failing to implement a continuing public education program that
assessed the unique attributes and characteristics of Enmark’s pipeline system. Enmark paid the
proposed penalty, which serves to close this Item with prejudice and authorizes PHMSA to make
a finding of violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(b).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $20,000, which has been paid in
full.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195.440 but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to
be warning items. The warning(s) were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to perform an
annual review of its Public Awareness and Damage Prevention Program in
accordance with Section 8.2.3 of Enmark’s program, “Measuring Program
Effectiveness;” and
2 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.
1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per
violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.



5
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(e) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to include in its
public education program baseline message materials with sufficient information
for local municipalities, school districts, businesses and residents to be able to
locate and identify its pipelines and provide them with Enmark’s appropriate
contact information.
Enmark presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to
address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 13633