{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220175003","title":"MID - VALLEY PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-05-03","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.412(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220175003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220175003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220175003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220175003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MID - VALLEY PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.412(a). The case was opened on 2017-05-03 and is reported as closed as of 2019-05-15. Proposed civil penalty: $88,400. Assessed civil penalty: $23,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220175003_Final Order_05032019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175003/220175003_Final%20Order_05032019.pdf\n\n220175003_Final Order_05032019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175003/220175003_Final%20Order_05032019_text.pdf\n\n220175003_NOPV PCP_05032017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175003/220175003_NOPV%20PCP_05032017.pdf\n\n220175003_NOPV PCP_05032017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175003/220175003_NOPV%20PCP_05032017_text.pdf\n\n220175003_Operator Response to Notice_06122017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220175003/220175003_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06122017.pdf\n\n220175003_Final Order_05032019_text.pdf\n\nMay 3, 2019\nMr. Kelcy Warren, Chairman\nEnergy Transfer Partners, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRe: CPF No. 2-2017-5003\nDear Mr. Warren:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nMid-Valley Pipeline Company. It makes one finding of violation and assesses a reduced civil\npenalty of $23,500. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This\nenforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by\ncertified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. James A. Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Gary MacDonald, President, Mid-Valley Pipeline Company, 1 Fluor Daniel Drive,\nBuilding A, Level 3, Sugar Land, Texas 77478\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 )\nMid-Valley Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 2-2017-5003\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n________________________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 15 through 19, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Mid-Valley Pipeline Company’s (MVPL)\npipeline facilities in Mississippi and Tennessee and records at the company’s Oxford,\nMississippi office. MVPL owns a 1,103-mile crude-oil pipeline running from Longview, Texas,\nto Samarian, Michigan (the Mid-Valley Pipeline). The Mid-Valley Pipeline is operated by\nEnergy Transfer Partners, LP.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to MVPL, by\nletter dated May 3, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that MVPL had violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.412 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $88,400 for the alleged violation.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time, Sunoco Pipeline, LP (SPLP), responded to\nthe Notice on behalf of MVPL, by letter dated June 12, 2017 (Response).2 The company\ncontested the allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing\nand therefore has waived its right to one. For purposes of this Order, the terms “MVPL,” SPLP,”\nand “Respondent” shall be used interchangeably.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 At the time of the PHMSA inspection, the Mid-Valley Pipeline was operated by Sunoco Pipeline, LP, a wholly-\nowned subsidiary of Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP. See, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP 2016 Form 10-K, available\nat, http://www.sunocologistics.com/SiteData/docs/10K2016Fin/b9174876261d8ab4/10-K;%202016%20-\n%20Final.pdf (last accessed May 21, 2018). On April 28, 2017, Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP and Energy Transfer\nPartners merged, with the resulting company being known as Energy Transfer Partners, LP. See, Energy Transfer,\nCompany Information, website, available at http://www.sunocologistics.com/Investors/Company-Information/32/\n(last accessed March 4, 2019).\n2 As of the date of the Response, SPLP had merged with Energy Transfer Partners, LP.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5003\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:\n§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable\nwaters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least\n26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent\nto each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,\ndriving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the\nsurface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-way. Specifically, the Notice alleged\nthat Respondent used aerial patrols to inspect its pipeline right-of-way (ROW), but that at the\ntime of the PHMSA inspection, several portions of the company’s ROW in Mississippi and\nTennessee were found to be so overgrown with trees and vegetation that the surface condition of\nthe ROW was not visible enough to yield an adequate inspection from the air. The Notice\nalleged that the following four locations on the pipeline ROW had excessive growth and tree\ncanopy blocking aerial visibility of the surface conditions:\n1) Aerial Marker 327;\n2) 3) 4) Bibbs Road crossing between Block Valve 339 and Aerial Marker 352;\nHighway 7 road crossing at Mile Post (MP) 373.842; and\nDanko Lane at MP 560.262.\nIn its Response, SPLP contested the alleged violation and argued that it should be withdrawn and\nthe proposed penalty either be reduced or eliminated. Specifically, it presented four distinct\ndefenses. First, Respondent argued that PHMSA had inappropriately applied requirements that\nwent beyond the language of § 195.412, thus violating the requirements of due process and the\nAdministrative Procedure Act (APA). Second, SPLP argued that PHMSA appeared “to impose a\nsubjective ground-level visibility requirement into § 195.412 and relies on insufficient evidence\nto try to demonstrate that SPLP failed to meet this additional requirement.” Third, it alleged that\n“the documentation demonstrates that SPLP was in compliance with § 195.412” and submitted\naerial right-of-way patrol reports “as conclusive evidence of compliance.” Fourth, it contended\nthat the proposed penalty was “unjustified and excessive.”3\nAnalysis\nI will first address Respondent’s three defenses aimed at the substantive issues surrounding the\nviolation itself. I will then address its fourth defense, dealing with the proposed penalty, in the\n“Assessment of Penalty” section below.\nSPLP’s first argument is that PHMSA violated the company’s due process rights and the APA by\ninitiating an enforcement action based on “additional requirements” that go beyond the explicit\nlanguage of § 195.412, and that form “the sole basis for enforcement.”4 Specifically, the\ncompany contends that the regulation only requires an operator to “inspect” the surface\nconditions of its ROW, not that it clear or maintain its ROW to any particular standard.\n3 Response, at 1.\n4 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5003\nPage 3\nAccording to SPLP, the key is “what § 195.412 does not require – there is no explicit clearing or\nmaintenance requirement contained in § 195.412 (let alone a frequency of maintenance nor an\nobjective measure of success or guidance document provided by PHMSA).” Additionally, SPLP\nargues that PHMSA has not provided any “guidance document” that gives the regulated\ncommunity “fair notice” of PHMSA’s position that “an operator can somehow predict PHMSA’s\nopinion of whether a clearing can be seen from a flyover solely by relying on a ground level\nvisit.”5\nSPLP is correct that governmental agencies cannot violate an operator’s right of due process by\ndepriving it of property without providing a minimum level of “fair notice” as to what may\nconstitute a violation of law. “Due process requires that parties receive fair notice before being\ndeprived of property …. In the absence of notice—for example, where the regulation is not\nsufficiently clear to warn a party about what is expected of it—an agency may not deprive a\nparty of property by imposing civil or criminal liability.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. EPA, 53 F.3d\n1324, 1328-29 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also,\nUnited States v. Chrysler Corp., 158 F.3d 1350, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Trinity Broad, of Fla.,\nInc. v. FCC, 211 F.3d 618, 628 (D.C. Cir. 2000).\nIn the current matter, however, PHMSA has sought only to enforce the express terms of a\nregulation first promulgated in 1981. Section 195.412(a) states that each operator is required to\ninspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline ROW at intervals not exceeding 3\nweeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. The operator is given the option to select any\n“appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way,” such as “walking, driving, [or] flying.”\nFurthermore, published enforcement decisions from PHMSA have provided ample notice to the\nregulated community that the agency interprets § 195.412(a) to mean that operators must\n“regularly inspect the surface conditions of their pipeline rights-of-way, by appropriate means,\nin order to detect encroachments and various other threats to the integrity of their facilities.”6\nTherefore, if an operator cannot view surface conditions using aerial patrols, then common sense\ndictates that aerial patrols are not an “appropriate” means of achieving compliance with\n§ 195.412(a).7\nPHMSA has interpreted this regulation consistently through a series of published final orders,\nfinding that if dense vegetation or overgrowth obstructs an operator’s view of its ROW surface\ncondition from the air, then the operator cannot meet the requirements of the regulation.8 For\n5 Id.\n6 See Nustar Energy, LP, CPF No. 3-2007-5002, Final Order (issued Feb. 5, 2009) (emphasis in original). Available\nat https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/FOCPEvent opid 0.html?nocache=5590.\n7 See Plains Pipeline, LP, CPF No. 4-2016-5015, Final Order (issued Mar. 7, 2018). Available at\nhttps://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/FOCPEvent opid 0.html?nocache=5590.\n8 PHMSA has issued numerous final orders applying this same standard. E.g., Texas Eastern Pipeline Products\nCompany, CPF No. 2-2005-5013, Final Order (issued April 13, 2006); Marathon Pipeline, LLC, CPF. No. 3-2007-\n5024, Final Order (issued Nov. 7, 2008); Nustar Energy, LP (f/k/a Valero, LP, CPF No. 3-2007-5002, Final Order\n(issued Feb. 5, 2009); ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, CPF No. 5-2011-5003, Final Order (issued Nov. 2, 2011);\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, CPF No. 1-2012-5001, Final Order (issued Oct. 9, 2012); Buckeye Partners,\nLP, CPF No. 1-2013-5003, Final Order (issued June 10, 2013); Plains Pipeline, LP, CPF No. 4-2016-5015, Final\nOrder (issued Mar. 7, 2018). Available at\nhttps://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/FOCPEvent opid 0.html?nocache=5590.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5003\nPage 4\nexample, in a case with facts very similar to those in the present case, PHMSA found that\n“[r]elying solely on aerial patrols is inappropriate in areas where such overgrowth prevented\nValero from observing surface conditions and potential damage to its facilities or encroachments\nto its rights-of-way. Respondent could have used ground patrols as an additional method of\ninspection but elected not to do so.”9 Finally, while not legally binding, PHMSA has issued\nother guidance stating that “[i]t is the position of the Department that, if visual aerial inspections\nare used by the operator to meet the requirements of [195.412], the rights-of-way must be kept\nclear of brush and trees.”10 Therefore, based on the foregoing, I find Respondent’s argument that\nits due process rights and the requirements of the APA were violated lacks merit.\nWith regard to SPLP’s second argument, the company contends that PHMSA has attempted in\nthis case to “impose a subjective ground-level visibility requirement into §195.412 and relies on\ninsufficient evidence to try to demonstrate that SPLP failed to meet this additional\nrequirement.”11 I disagree. The record demonstrates that the OPS inspector personally observed\nand photographed conditions at four locations along MVPL’s ROW showing that there was such\nexcessive undergrowth and tree canopy that the surface condition of the ROW could not be\nobserved from the air. I have reviewed the photographic evidence provided by the OPS\ninspector and find these photographs do indeed show that the four locations on Respondent's\nROW were covered in dense overgrowth and excessive tree canopy.\n12 It is evident, from\nviewing the photographs, that there was no clear line-of-sight from the air to the surface of the\nROW. Accordingly, by relying solely on aerial patrols in these specific areas, Respondent could\nnot inspect surface conditions along its ROW.\nFinally, SPLP submitted aerial ROW patrol reports from 2014, 2015, and 2016 through August\n15, 2016, to demonstrate compliance with § 195.412. While the records demonstrate that SPLP\ndid indeed conduct aerial patrols within the requisite intervals, they are not relevant to the\nallegation that Respondent could not have inspected the surface conditions at these four locations\nby the use of aerial patrols.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface conditions on or\nadjacent to its ROW where trees and vegetation on the ROW precluded a proper inspection of\nthe pipeline surface conditions by aerial patrol.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\n9 Nustar Energy, LP (f/k/a Valero, L.P.), CPF No. 3-2007-5002, Final Order (issued Feb. 5, 2009). Available at\nhttps://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/FOCPEvent opid 0.html?nocache=5590.\n10 The Honorable Jerry F. Costello, Response to Request for Interpretation, [PI-95-015] (May 28, 1991).\n11 Response, at 1.\n12 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report) (May 3, 2017), at Exhibit A (on file with PHMSA).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5003\nPage 5\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.13 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 $88,400 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $88,400 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.412(a), for failing to inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to its ROW where trees\nand excessive vegetation precluded inspection of the pipeline surface conditions by aerial patrol.\nIn its Response, SPLP contended that “the proposed penalty is unjustified and excessive.”14\nSpecifically, SPLP argued that PHMSA had erroneously applied the penalty assessment criteria\nfor gravity and culpability, resulting in a proposed civil penalty that was higher than warranted.\nWith regard to gravity, the Violation Report alleged the next-to-the-lowest level of gravity for\nthe violation, i.e., that the “[p]robable violation occurred in areas that are not in [a High\nConsequence Area (HCA)] or not in an HCA ‘could affect’ segment.”15 SPLP argued that\nPHMSA should have selected the lowest level of gravity, i.e., that the probable violation\noccurred outside an HCA but “pipeline safety was minimally affected.” In support of its\nargument, SPLP first reiterated its contention that operator personnel did not note excessive\nvegetation growth as obstructing the pipeline ROW and that all inspections were performed at\nthe requisite intervals. Second, SPLP asserted that its ROW inspections at these locations, when\nconsidered in conjunction with its public-awareness and damage-prevention programs and\ncomputerized leak-detection program, provided for the overall safe operation of the pipeline.\nThird, SPLP stated that there were no accidents, releases or other events that occurred on this\nsegment, presumably showing that no harm had resulted from its aerial inspection program.16\nThis penalty criterion, however, is not dependent on whether any actual harm occurred as a result\nof the violation. On the contrary, it recognizes that the areas in which the violation occurred are\nnot the most environmentally sensitive locations but that the violation still presented a risk of\naccident or injury to life, the environment and property. When trees and vegetation overgrowth\nprevent a proper inspection of surface conditions along a ROW, an operator may fail to promptly\nidentify certain activities, including conduct by third parties, that could lead to pipeline damage\n13 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n14 Response, at 1.\n15 Violation Report, at 10.\n16 Response, at 5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5003\nPage 6\nor to identify an actual release of product. I also reject the argument that because SPLP’s\nemployees failed to note the existence of excessive vegetation in their patrolling reports, this\nshould somehow mitigate the penalty. Aerial patrols should alert operators to those situations\nwhere excessive vegetation prevents effective inspections and thereby result in additional\nclearing or alternative means of patrolling.\nHowever, I am persuaded, in this particular case, that Respondent’s public-awareness and\ndamage-prevention programs and computerized leak detection, working in conjunction with the\naerial patrolling conducted pursuant to § 195.412(a), ensured that safety was only minimally\naffected. Although these programs and the company’s leak-detection system do not serve as a\nsubstitute for SPLP’s regulatory obligation to visually inspect the surface conditions of its\nROWs, they do serve to complement patrolling by monitoring pipeline integrity and minimizing\nthe risk of a pipeline failure or product release. I would also note that the locations cited in the\nNotice as lacking adequate patrolling are located in areas that are not considered to be\nenvironmentally sensitive HCAs. Finally, while the overgrowth inhibited SPLP’s ability to\ninspect the condition of the ROW at these four locations, Respondent did perform the patrols at\nthe required regulatory intervals for the remainder of the ROW. Considering the totality of these\ncircumstances, I find that pipeline safety was minimally affected in this case and the penalty\nshould be reduced.\nWith respect to culpability, the Violation Report alleged that “[t]he operator made a deliberate\ndecision not to comply with a requirement that was clearly applicable.”17 SPLP argues there was\nno regulatory requirement that was “clearly applicable” in this case. Additionally, Respondent\nclaims that PHMSA relies solely on the statement of one SPLP employee regarding the\nmodifications that had been made to the company’s ROW mowing program to support the\nproposed penalty. Finally, Respondent argues that the inspections were completed within the\nrequisite interval and at no time during these inspections did company personnel note excessive\nvegetation growth as prohibiting SPLP from adequately inspecting its ROW.18\nAccording to SPLP, PHMSA appeared to be relying on the statements of a single SPLP\nemployee, i.e., its Operations Supervisor, regarding budget cuts that had been made to the\ncompany’s ROW mowing program. The company argued that PHMSA failed to “connect those\npurported statements to a violation of §195.412. Simply stating that funding had decreased does\nnot demonstrate that funding was insufficient and, once again, §195.412 does not specify any\nfrequency of right-of-way maintenance. Moreover, at no time did the personnel performing the\ninspections note that excess vegetation growth did not allow for adequate inspection of the right-\nof-way and all inspections were performed at the prescribed intervals and total number required\nper calendar year.”19\nI agree with SPLP that the evidence presented by the Southern Region on this Item is insufficient\nto prove a deliberate violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412. While I suspect that the company’s\nfailure to clear the overgrowth obscuring its view of the ROW from the air may well have been\ndue to budget cuts, I find that the Southern Region has failed to meet its burden of proving that\n17 Violation Report, at 11.\n18 Response, at 5.\n19 Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 2-2017-5003\nPage 7\nRespondent made a deliberate decision not to comply with a requirement that was clearly\napplicable. Instead, I find that SPLP simply failed to comply with a requirement that was clearly\napplicable, which represents a lower level of culpability than a deliberate violation and would\ntherefore justify an additional reduction in the proposed civil penalty for culpability.\nNotwithstanding such a reduction, I should emphasize that the diminished culpability still carries\na substantial penalty and does not negate or diminish SPLP’s obligation to inspect the surface\nconditions on or adjacent to each pipeline ROW. Effective patrolling is one of the best ways for\na pipeline operator to identify encroachments, third-party damage, and leaks along its ROW that\nmight not otherwise be detectable and should never be compromised. Accordingly, based upon a\nreduction in both the gravity and culpability assessment criteria, as discussed above, I assess\nRespondent a reduced civil penalty of $23,500 for the violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.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\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $23,500 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\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.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nMay 3, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":25380}