{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220145003","title":"MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-05-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(c), 195.452(j), 195.452(l), 195.588.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220145003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220145003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220145003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220145003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(c),  195.452(j),  195.452(l),  195.588. The case was opened on 2014-05-05 and is reported as closed as of 2017-02-28. Proposed civil penalty: $24,400. Assessed civil penalty: $24,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220145003_Closure Letter_02282017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220145003/220145003_Closure%20Letter_02282017.pdf\n\n220145003_Closure Letter_02282017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220145003/220145003_Closure%20Letter_02282017_text.pdf\n\n220145003_Final Order_04032015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220145003/220145003_Final%20Order_04032015.pdf\n\n220145003_Final Order_04032015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220145003/220145003_Final%20Order_04032015_text.pdf\n\n220145003_nopv_pcp_pco_05052014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220145003/220145003_nopv_pcp_pco_05052014.pdf\n\n220145003_nopv_pcp_pco_05052014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220145003/220145003_nopv_pcp_pco_05052014_text.pdf\n\n220145003_Operator Response_06052014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220145003/220145003_Operator%20Response_06052014.pdf\n\n220145003_Closure Letter_02282017_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nFebruary 28, 2017\nMr. Craig Pierson\nPresident\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC\n539 South Main Street, Room 702-M\nFindlay, OH 45840\nCPF 2-2014-5003\nDear Mr. Pierson:\nOn April 3, 2015, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS) sent Marathon Pipe Line, LLC (Marathon) a Final Order with\na Civil Penalty and Compliance Order (CO) regarding the assessment of four (4) cased pipe\nsegments (segment).\nOn April 16, 2015, Marathon paid the Civil Penalty. On April 23, 2015, Marathon responded\nby electronic mail that it would not use External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) to\nre-assess the cased pipe segments, and intended to modify its ECDA cased pipe procedures.\nMarathon subsequently submitted revised procedures and plans to assess the segments using\n“other technology.” In its work to assess the segments, Marathon was granted extensions for\nthe initial application of “other technology,” and later successful use of in-line inspection\ntools to assess the segments. On December 2, 2015, Marathon responded by electronic mail\nthat it had assessed three (3) of the four (4) segments, and submitted written documentation of\nthe assessments on May 10, 2016. On June 21, 2016, Marathon responded by written\ncommunication that it had assessed the fourth segment, and submitted written documentation\nof the assessment on September 19, 2016.\nBased on our review of the actions taken by Marathon and the supporting documentation we\nhave determined that Marathon has complied with the terms of the CO and Final Order. This\ncase is now closed and no further action is necessary with respect to the matters involved in\nthis case.\nPlease refer to CPF 2-2014-5003 in any correspondence referring to this matter. If you have\nany questions on any other pipeline safety issue, please contact my office at (404) 832-1147.\nSincerely,\nJames A. Urisko\nDirector, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPHMSA Southern Region\n\n220145003_Final Order_04032015_text.pdf\n\nApril 3, 2015\nMr. Craig O. Pierson\nPresident\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840-3229\nRe: CPF No. 2-2014-5003\nDear Mr. Pierson:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $24,400, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the\ndate 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. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nMr. Randall W. Bishop, Environmental, Safety & Regulatory Compliance,\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nMarathon Pipe Line, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2014-5003\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn various dates in July 2012 and February 26, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Marathon Pipe Line, LLC (Marathon or Respondent) in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon has\nownership interest in approximately 2,900 miles of pipeline across nine states and associated\ncrude oil and product storage assets in the Midwest and Gulf Coast regions.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 5, 2014, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that Marathon violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452 and 195.588 and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $24,400 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed\nordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nMarathon responded to the Notice by letter dated June 5, 2014 (Response). The company\ncontested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reconsidered.\nMarathon also proposed a compromise offer, which OPS addressed by letter dated June 30,\n2014. The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the outstanding issues and no settlement\nwas reached. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 http://www marathonpipeline.com/Who_We_Are/Investor_Information/ (last accessed December 1, 2014).\n\n\n\nCPF No: 2-2014-5003\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(c) What must be in the baseline assessment plan? (1) An operator\nmust include each of the following elements in its written baseline\nassessment plan:\n(i) The methods selected to assess the integrity of the line pipe. An\noperator must assess the integrity of the line pipe by any of the following\nmethods. The methods an operator selects to assess low frequency electric\nresistance welded pipe or lap welded pipe susceptible to longitudinal seam\nfailure must be capable of assessing seam integrity and of detecting\ncorrosion and deformation anomalies.\n(A) ….\n(C) External corrosion direct assessment in accordance with\n§ 195.588; or\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(c) by failing to comply with\n§ 195.588 in the development and use of its External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)\nprocedures for baseline assessments of line pipe in cased crossings. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Marathon’s ECDA procedures, Standard MPLMNT127, do not comport with NACE\nSP0502 as required by § 195.588. NACE SP05022 requires that an operator select indirect\ninspection tools that are capable of detecting corrosion activity and coating holidays reliably\nunder all specific pipeline conditions encountered by the operator, or in this case, line pipe in\ncased crossings.\nOPS alleged that Marathon’s ECDA procedures Section 4.1.43, Section 5.1.14, and Section\n4.1.4.15 do not require that an operator select tools that reliably detect corrosion activity and\ncoating holidays on lined pipe inside a steel casing. Section 4.1.4 requires that casing test\nmethods provide information about the electrical status of casings; Section 5.1.1 requires two or\nmore testing methods to determine casing electrical isolation. However, neither section\naddresses the overall ability of these tools to detect corrosion activity and coating holidays.\n2 NACE SP0502 Section 3.4.1. states “The pipeline operator shall select indirect inspection tools based on their\nability to detect corrosion activity and coating holidays reliably under the specific pipeline conditions to be\nencountered.\n3 Section 4.1.4 (Selection of Indirect Inspection Tools) “Casing test methods are expected to provide information\nabout the electrical status of casings (i.e. metallic or electrolytic short).” Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation\nReport), (May 5, 2014) (on file with PHMSA), at Exhibit A.\n4 Section 5.1.1 (Electrical Test Methods to Verify Casing Isolation) “Two or more test methods shall be selected to\ndetermine the casing electrical isolation.” Violation Report, at Exhibit A.\n5 Section 4.1.4.1 (Qualitative Tests for Casing Isolation). Violation Report, at Exhibit A.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 2-2014-5003\nPage 3\nIn addition, Section 4.1.4.16 and 4.1.4.27 of Marathon’s procedure described six testing methods,\nfour of which were based on indirect inspection tools listed in Table 2 of NACE SP0502, Section\n3.4.1. However, neither of these procedures included “additional considerations,” which Table 2\nexplicitly stated must be applied to the five indirect inspection tools displayed in the table.\nOPS also alleged that Standard MPLMNT127 Section 6.1.18 contravened NACE SP0502 Section\n5 Direct Examination, as it did not require direct examinations of either line pipe within casings\nfor prioritized indications or in the ECDA Region identified as most likely for external corrosion.\nIn its Response, Marathon stated that, even though its ECDA procedures predated Section\n195.588 and PHMSA’s approval of ECDA for liquid pipeline assessments, the company has\nupdated its procedures in order to comply with § 195.588. Notwithstanding this timing, the\ncompany said its ECDA procedures utilize indirect surveys, along with additional considerations,\nto test the electrical status of each casing. Marathon stated that, in the experience of the\ncompany and the industry, “in the absence of a metallic or electrolytic “short,” . . . it is\nreasonable to expect that there is minimal risk of external corrosion of the carrier pipe within the\ncasing.\"9 Nevertheless, Marathon notified PHMSA’s Southern Region on April 30, 2014, that it\nwould no longer use ECDA procedures as a sole assessment method for cased piping.\nOPS strenuously objected to Marathon’s statement that, in the absence of a metallic or\nelectrolytic short, there is a minimal risk of external corrosion within cased piping. OPS noted\nthat the Respondent did not cite any data in support of its assertion beyond its general statement\nregarding industry experience and then specifically cited a 1997 Marathon failure. In this\naccident, Marathon conducted an in-line-inspection (ILI) after clearing a short from the casing to\nthe line pipe. Nevertheless, the line failed due to external corrosion and Marathon found no\nevidence that the casing was shorted to the line pipe prior to the accident.\nAccording to § 195.588, when performing external corrosion direct assessment, operators must\nadhere to the requirements of NACE SP0502. While there are sections of the pipeline\nregulations that allow for operators to utilize operating experience and judgment in operating and\nmaintaining their system, this particular section sets forth prescriptive requirements and those\nrequirements were not followed in this case.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(c) by failing to comply with § 195.588 in the development and use of its ECDA\nprocedures for baseline assessments of line pipe in cased crossings.\n6 Section 4.1.4.1 (Qualitative Tests for Casing Isolation). Violation Report, at Exhibit A.\n7 Section 4.1.4.2 (Quantitative Test for Casing Isolation). Violation Report, at Exhibit A.\n8 Section 6.1.1 “The Direct Examination Step requires excavations to expose the pipe upstream and downstream of\nthe casing then a detailed inspection can be performed.” Violation Report, at Exhibit A.\n9 Marathon Response to the Notice (Response), at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 2-2014-5003\nPage 4\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to\nmaintain a pipeline’s integrity?\n(1) . . . .\n(5) Assessment methods. An operator must assess the integrity of line\npipe by any of the following methods. The methods an operator selects to\nassess low frequency electric resistance welded pipe or lap welded pipe\nsusceptible to longitudinal seam failure must be capable of assessing seam\nintegrity and of detecting corrosion and deformation anomalies.\n(i) . . . .\n(iii) External corrosion direct assessment in accordance with\n§ 195.588;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j) by failing to comply with\n§ 195.588 in the development and use of its ECDA procedures for continual assessments of line\npipe in cased crossings. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Section 4.1.4 and Section 6.1.1 of\nMarathon’s ECDA procedures, Standard MPLMNT127, do not comport with NACE SP0502, as\nrequired by § 195.588.\nIn its Response, Marathon stated that its defense to this Item is the same as in Item 1, above. I\nfound this defense unconvincing. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j) by failing to comply with § 195.588 in the\ndevelopment and use of its ECDA procedures for continuous assessments of line pipe in cased\ncrossings.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l), which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(l) What records must be kept? (1) An operator must maintain for\nreview during an inspection:\n(i) ….\n(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any\nmodifications, justifications, variances, deviations and determinations\nmade, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the\nintegrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l) by failing to maintain\ndocuments to support its decisions and analyses for review during an inspection, including any\nmodifications, justifications, variances, deviations, and determinations made, and actions taken,\nto implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program listed in\n\n\n\nCPF No: 2-2014-5003\nPage 5\n§ 195.452(f). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Marathon failed to provide documents during\nthe OPS inspection to support decisions and analyses used to implement and evaluate its ECDA\nprocedures.\nIn its Response, Marathon disagreed that it was in violation of this recordkeeping requirement\nand it submitted several worksheets, procedures, and other forms to demonstrate that it complied\nwith this regulation. The Respondent requested that OPS withdraw the proposed penalty for this\nItem and approve Marathon’s existing $42,858 monetary commitment to a University of Akron\nresearch project intended to develop new methodology for characterizing and quantifying\ncorrosion sites on cased piping.10 Irrespective of its submission following the inspection,\nMarathon failed to have these records available at the time of inspection.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(l) by failing to maintain for review during an inspection documents to support its\ndecisions and analyses to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management\nprogram listed in § 195.452(f).\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.588(b)(1), which states:\n§ 195.588 What standards apply to direct assessment?\n(a) ….\n(b) The requirements for performing external corrosion direct\nassessment are as follows:\n(1) General. You must follow the requirements of NACE SP0502\n(incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). Also, you must develop and\nimplement a External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) plan that\nincludes procedures addressing pre-assessment, indirect examination,\ndirect examination, and post-assessment.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.588 by failing to follow the\nrequirements of NACE SP0502 when performing ECDA. Specifically, the Notice alleged that,\nin 2010 and 2011, Marathon conducted a baseline assessment of its Lebanon Junction Mid-\nValley to Lebanon Junction 20-inch pipeline. During this assessment, Marathon used its ECDA\nprocedures, which do not comply with NACE SP0502. The Notice also alleged that, in 2010 and\n2011, Marathon conducted a continued assessment of its pipeline in several locations in and\naround the Lima Tank Farm.11\nIn its Response, Marathon restated its defense to Items 1 and 2, in which it defended its ECDA\nprocedures as compliant with NACE SP0502. For the reasons stated above in the discussion of\nItem 1, I disagree with Marathon’s characterization of its procedures and find that they do not\ncomply with § 195.588.\n10 Response, at 6.\n11 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), at 5.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 2-2014-5003\nPage 6\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.588 by failing to follow the requirements of NACE SP0502 when performing ECDA.\nThese findings of violation 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 an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. 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; the Respondent’s\nability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing\nbusiness; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without\nany reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $24,400 for the violations cited above.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $24,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(l), for failing to provide documents to OPS during its inspection to support the\ndecisions and analyses to implement and evaluate its ECDA procedures. Marathon submitted\ncertain reports addressing its ECDA procedures subsequent to the inspection. Given that it\nsubmitted certain documents prior to OPS’s last visit, which was conducted in 2014, Marathon\nargued that the civil penalty should be withdrawn and redirected to an existing research project.\nI find that Marathon violated this regulation by failing to keep the required scope of documents\nfor review during the inspection. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that OPS can\nreview the documents in real time, along with the inspection. Irrespective of the company’s\nsubsequent submission, it failed to comply with a core component of the regulation. In addition,\nthe records provided by Marathon do not provide a comprehensive view of the decisions and\nanalyses used in the inspection of Respondent’s integrity management program. Therefore, I do\nnot see any basis for reducing or withdrawing the penalty on the basis of the gravity of the\nviolation, respondent’s culpability, history of prior offenses, or good faith in attempting to\ncomply. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\nassess Respondent a civil penalty of $24,400 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(l).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $24,400.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to 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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\n\n\n\nCPF No: 2-2014-5003\nPage 7\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $24,400 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 Items 1, 2, and 4 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452 and 195.588. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who\nengages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is\nrequired to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant\nto the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take\nthe following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(c) and (j) (Items 1 and 2), Respondent\nmust modify its written integrity management ECDA procedures for completing\nbaseline assessments and reassessments such that the procedures are in accordance\nwith § 195.588 within 120 days of issuance of this Final Order. After the procedures\nhave been modified, Respondent must submit all records and documentation showing\nmodification of the plans to OPS for inspection within 60 days of completing the\nmodification.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.588 (Item 4), Respondent must complete the\nfollowing assessments for the Lebanon Junction Mid-Valley to Lebanon Junction 20-\ninch, the Lima Metering-Lima Tank Farm 22-inch and 16-inch, and the Lima\nMetering-Lima Maumee 24-inch – 16-inch pipelines:\n(a) Assess the line pipe in casings in accordance with § 195.452(c)(1)(i) or\n195.452(j)(5), as appropriate, within 150 days of the issuance of this Final\nOrder; and\n(b) Notify OPS, Southern Region, of the assessment method(s) to be used and\nprovide the procedures for performing the assessments at least 120 days\nbefore assessing the line pipe; and\n(c) Notify OPS, Southern Region, of the date that each assessment will be\nconducted at least 30 days prior to assessing the line pipe; and\n(d) Notify OPS, Southern Region, within 3 days of completing each assessment;\nand\n(e) Submit all records and documentation showing completion of the assessments\nto OPS, Southern Region, within 30 days of completing each assessment.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 2-2014-5003\nPage 8\n3. PHMSA requests that Marathon maintain and submit documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to the Director, Southern Region. Please report these costs in two\ncategories: (1) total costs associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies, and analyses; and (2) total costs associated with\nreplacements, additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\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","truncated":false,"body_characters":26274}