SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF320190003_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_01062021.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF320190003_Operator Response to Notice and Request Copy of the Proposed Civil Penalty Worksheet_02122020.pdf#

320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFApril 19, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: konderdonk@suburbanpropane.com Mr. Keith P. Onderdonk Vice President, Operational Support Suburban Propane, LP 240 Route 10 West Whippany, New Jersey 07981 Re: CPF No. 3-2019-0003 Dear Mr. Onderdonk: Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision reduces the civil penalty to $22,900. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this decision by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ In the Matter of ) Suburban Propane, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2019-0003 ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION From September 11, 2018, through September 13, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the Suburban Propane, LP (Suburban or Respondent) facilities and records in West Salem, and propane gas systems in La Crosse and Juneau counties, Wisconsin. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent by letter dated November 22, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).1 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Suburban had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,700 for the alleged violations. Suburban responded to the Notice by letter dated February 12, 2020 (Response) contesting the allegations, requesting a hearing, and requesting a copy of the case file, including the civil penalty worksheet.2 Respondent also requested an informal conference and specifically stated that it “[did] intend to seek available economic relief where possible.” On May 5, 2020, the Central Region provided the case file and civil penalty worksheet,3 and on May 20, 2020, held an informal conference with Respondent. On June 4, 2020, Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing and noted that it no longer contested the alleged violations, proposed compliance order, or proposed civil penalty for Item 2.4 1 Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), CPF No. 3-2019- 0003 (November 22, 2019). The original Notice went undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. On January 14, 2020, Central Region resent the Notice to a new address provided by Suburban. Suburban had 30 days from the date of receipt of the Notice to respond, as permitted under § 190.208. 2 Suburban Propane, LP’s Response to Notice (February 12, 2020). 3 Due to certain COVID-19 related mail issues, Central Region did not review Suburban’s response until May 4, 2020. 4 Suburban email to PHMSA (June 3, 2020) (on file with PHMSA).#

320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 3-2019-0003 Page 2 On December 18, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 193.603(b) (Item 1), 192.743(a) (Item 2), 192.619(a) (Item 3), and 192.201(a)(2)(iii) (Item 4).5 The Final Order found that Respondent had already satisfied the terms of the proposed compliance order. In addition, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.223, the Final Order assessed a civil penalty of $22,900 for Item 2 and a reduced civil penalty of $6,566 for Item 4. The total civil penalty for both violations was $29,466. On January 6, 2021, Respondent filed a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243 (Petition).6 In its Petition, Respondent sought reconsideration of the civil penalty assessed for Item 4 and presented grounds for reconsideration. Respondent asserted that the civil penalty assessment considerations in the Final Order did not properly reflect certain factual information. In addition, Respondent asserted that it had withdrawn its initial hearing request based on its understanding from the informal conference on May 20, 2020, that Respondent had already provided sufficient grounds to support withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4 and the Director had recommended withdrawal. Standard of Review Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order that has been issued pursuant to § 190.213. Reconsideration is not an appeal or a completely new review of the record.7 A respondent may ask for correction of an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a respondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order. Repetitious information or arguments will not be considered.8 The Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings. Analysis 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 related series of violations.9 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; any effect that 5 Suburban Propane, LP, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2019-0003, 2020 WL 8369928 (December 18, 2020). 6 Suburban Propane LP’s Petition for Reconsideration (January 6, 2021). 7 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d). 8 Plains All American Pipeline, LP, CPF No. 5-2009-00118, 2013 WL 5883403, at *3 (August 30, 2013). 9 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.#

320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 3-2019-0003 Page 3 the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations; and self-disclosure and correction of violations, or actions to correct a violation, prior to discovery by PHMSA. 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. Item 4 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,800 for the violation of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii), for failing to correctly set pressure relief devices to operate at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) by failing to set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures that do not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) plus 50 percent when MAOP is less than 12 psig.10 While Respondent had withdrawn its contest of the violation in response to the Notice, Respondent had offered information to mitigate the civil penalty, including that it utilized the regulator manufacturer’s documentation to establish an MAOP of 15 psig.11 Respondent also contended that the setting of the station regulator relief valves would have been allowed under a separate provision, § 192.201(a)(2)(ii), and that the violation was quickly corrected. The Final Order did not find the settings were compliant with any other code sections, but determined that Respondent had provided a reasonable justification for its noncompliance, which was predicated on a misinterpretation of the correct MAOP for the six segments, and that the misinterpretation warranted a reduction of the proposed civil penalty under the good faith credit. The proposed civil penalty was reduced to $6,566. Respondent argued in its Petition that the civil penalty assessment considerations in the Final Order did not appropriately reflect certain factual information. With regard to nature and circumstances, Respondent asserted that its established inlet pressure was not an error or misinterpretation, but a difference in choice, and that the safety of the system was not compromised. According to the Petition, “the manufacturer documentation previously provided to PHMSA clearly shows that the service regulators in question are more than capable of handling a 15 psi inlet pressure while still offering adequate relief protection downstream.”12 Further, with regard to gravity, Respondent argued that due to the performance limitations of the regulator itself, pipeline safety was not affected at all. Regarding culpability, Respondent asserted that culpability did not exist for Item 4, because the relief settings were compliant under a separate regulation, § 192.20l(a)(2)(ii). PHMSA finds Respondent’s assertions are based on an erroneous interpretation of the regulation. As more fully explained in the Final Order, Respondent’s pressure relief devices were not set to operate at pressures that do not exceed the MAOP plus 50 percent. The Notice alleged that 19 and 19.5 psig exceeded the pressure setting permitted under § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) because the actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limited by house service regulators. Therefore, the maximum pressure setting of the relief valves would be 15 psig. The regulators in question are stamped with the maximum pressure relief setting, but Respondent used the manufacturer’s 10 Notice, at 3. 11 Response, at 4. 12 Petition, at 1.#

320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 3-2019-0003 Page 4 specifications for emergency pressure rating to calculate its MAOP when MAOP must be calculated under normal operating conditions, not based on the emergency pressure rating. Section 192.201(a)(2)(ii) is not applicable because the MAOP is not 12 psig or more. As to whether pipeline safety was affected, a finding that pipeline safety was minimally affected is the lowest possible level under the gravity assessment factor and was the appropriate rating for violation Item 4. Respondent also contended that the Final Order did not consider its history of prior offenses when assessing a penalty, according to § 192.225(a)(3), or its good faith in attempting to achieve compliance as required by § 192.225(a)(4). However, Respondent’s history of prior offenses was in fact included in the Violation Report, and was considered in the Penalty Assessment as a factor that did not increase the total point calculation used to determine the base civil penalty. Good faith was also considered in assessing Respondent’s civil penalty, and the Final Order specifically reduced the penalty under this consideration to account for Respondent’s reasonable justification for its non-compliance. Finally, Respondent asserted that prior to issuance of the Final Order, it had withdrawn its hearing request based on its understanding from the informal conference on May 20, 2020, that Respondent had provided sufficient grounds to support withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4 and the Director had recommended withdrawal. Respondent is correct that the Director’s recommendation dated September 10, 2020, submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), recommended withdrawal of the civil penalty for Item 4. As a general matter, I am not bound by a Director’s recommendation, and will consider all of the evidence in the case file and the applicable civil penalty assessment factors when issuing a final order. Given Respondent’s lack of violation history, it appears Respondent may have been unaware that the Director’s recommendation is not binding, unlike a Consent Agreement reached pursuant to § 190.219. Having considered these circumstances in light of the Director’s recommendation, Respondent’s limited enforcement history, Respondent’s justification for the noncompliance and the minimal, if any, impact to pipeline safety, I have determined that it would be appropriate to reconsider the previously reduced civil penalty for Item 4 pursuant to § 190.225(b)(2), which permits me to consider “other matters as justice may require” in determining the amount of a civil penalty. Under this assessment factor, I find that the record demonstrates that Respondent misunderstood the requirements of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) and the MAOP stamped on the regulator itself, and this fact should be credited when considering justification for a civil penalty in this case. Further, Respondent’s failure to comply with § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) in this case minimally affected pipeline safety, the noncompliance was not egregious or willful, and did not significantly increase the likelihood of a pipeline failure. Respondent is advised to ensure that it complies with the regulations going forward as the regulations assist in the continued safe operation of the pipeline, and a failure to comply with regulations may result in future enforcement, including issuance of a civil penalty.#

320190003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_04192021_(18-160552S)_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 3-2019-0003 Page 5 Based upon the foregoing, I withdraw the civil penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) (Item 4). No other amendments to the Final Order are made by this Decision, and the remaining civil penalty of $22,900 for violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 2) is now due. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Decision. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $22,900 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9, and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court. This Decision on Reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding. April 19, 2021 __________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf, page 1Official PDFof Transportation U.S. Department . 901 Locust Street, Suite 462 Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2641 Safety Administration Pipeline and Hazardous Materials FedEx -7774 7397 6716 January 14, 2020 Keith P. Onderdonk Vice President, Operational Support Suburban Propane, L.P. 240 Rte 10 West Whippany, NJ 07981 RE: CPF 3-2019-0003 Dear Mr. Onderdonk: On November 22, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Central Region sent Suburban Propane, L.P. a Notice of Probable Violation (Notice), CPF 3-2019-0003, that included a proposed civil penalty and a proposed compliance order. The original Notice was addressed to an apparently inactive Suburban Propane office in Wisconsin, and went undelivered by the US Postal Service. Therefore, I have enclosed a copy of this Notice that is being sent to you via FedEx, with no changes to the original Notice. As described in the Notice and the Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings, following receipt, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a hearing under 49 CFR §190.211. Because you did not receive the original Notice, Suburban Propane, L.P. has 30 days from the date of receipt of this cover letter to respond to the Notice, in accordance with 49 CFR $190.208. In your correspondence on this matter please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003. Sincerely, for Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Region, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure cc (via email): Ed Moreno, CSC Manager Suburban Propane, L.P. emoreno@suburbanpropane.com#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf, page 2U.S. Department of Transportation 901 Locust Street, Suite 462 Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2641 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED November 22, 2019 Ed Moreno Division President Suburban Propane, L.P. 800 South Division Street, Suite D Waunakee, WI 53597 CPF 3-2019-0003 Dear Mr. Moreno: On September 11-13, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your procedures, records and field facilities in West Salem and propane gas systems in La Cross and Juneau Counties, Wisconsin. As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Suburban Propane L.P. (Suburban) has committed violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are:#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf, page 3§192.603 General provisions. (%) Each operator shill kep recards necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605. Suburban did not keep records of its liaison meetings with fire, police and other public officials in accordance $192.603. Section 192.603 requires operators to keep records necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605, which include the inspection, Suburban was unable to produce records of the meetings with the administering of Suburban's emergency plans as required by §192.615. During the appropriate fire, police and other public officials in order to demonstrate that it met the requirements of §192.615(c). 2. §192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices. (a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review and calculations. Suburban failed to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution systems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. Specifically, Suburban had no regulator station design information for the pressure limiting and regulating devices that would show that the determined or calculated capacities of the devices are sufficient to meet the pressure limits of $192.201(a). Additionally, Suburban was unable to provide records showing that the determined and calculated capacities of the pressure relief devices were reviewed for calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, PHMSA's inspector found the documented regulator orifices for the Fisher 627 devices were incorrect for the regulator stations at Pine Crest II, Edgewood, Pineview and Terlingua. The orifice size was listed as 1-inch for the Fisher 627 with 1-inch body at the Pine Crest II, Edgewood, and Pineview stations. The largest orifice for this device is ½- inch. The orifice size was listed as 2-inch for the Fisher 627 with 2-inch body at the Terlingua station. Likewise, the largest orifice for this device is ½ inch. Suburban revised this information after being informed by PHMSA's inspector. 2#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf, page 43. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines (a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following: (1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part. (2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was tested after construction as follows... Suburban did not correctly determine the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) to be the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Suburban's records listed the MAOP on each of its six systems as 15 psig, but the PHMSA inspector found house service regulators having a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10 psig. 4. §192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations. (a) Each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station or group of those stations installed to protect a pipeline must have enough capacity, and must be set to operate, to insure the following: (1) ... (iiii) If the maximum allowable operating pressure is less than 12 p.s.i. (83 kPa) (2) In pipelines other than a low pressure distribution system: (i).•• gage, the pressure may not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure plus 50 percent. Suburban did not correctly set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(2)(iii). Records showed that stations, located at Terlingua, Pineview, Bluffside, Pinecrest II, and Edgewood. This Suburban's pressure relief devices were set between 19 and 19.5 psig for five regulator proximately 50 percent. The actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limite ressure setting is above the MAOP, exceeding the operating pressure b by house service regulators. Therefore, the maximum pressure setting of the relief valves would be 15 psig. 3#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf, page 5Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $46,700 as follows: Item number PENALTY 2 $22,900 4 $23,800 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Suburban Propane, L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this lotice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to th otice, we propose that vou submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days fro receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. 4#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf, page 6• In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003 and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Allan (Berline Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Director, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO Corrected_01142020.pdf, page 7PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 2. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to records of regulator In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to determining the hall review the components of each system to determine the design pressure of naximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of each segment, Suburbal Records of the MAOP determinations shall be keep. the weakest element of the segment and update the MAOP determinations. 4. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to setting pressure relief levices at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of g192.201(a)(111) compliance with $192.201 and document the pressure settings if each device. Suburban must adjust its pressure limiting and relieving devices to be il Suburban shall complete and provide documentation of the actions taken for Items 1-4 of the Proposed Compliance Order to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Administration within 90 days after receipt of a Final Order. Central Director, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 4. Region, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) otal cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipelin nfrastructure 6#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED November 22, 2019 Ed Moreno Division President Suburban Propane, L.P. 800 South Division Street, Suite D Waunakee, WI 53597 CPF 3-2019-0003 Dear Mr. Moreno: On September 11-13, 2018, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected your procedures, records and field facilities in West Salem and propane gas systems in La Cross and Juneau Counties, Wisconsin. As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that Suburban Propane L.P. (Suburban) has committed violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected and the probable violations are:#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf, page 21. §192.603 General provisions. (a) . . . . . (b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605. Suburban did not keep records of its liaison meetings with fire, police and other public officials in accordance §192.603. Section 192.603 requires operators to keep records necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605, which include the administering of Suburban’s emergency plans as required by §192.615. During the inspection, Suburban was unable to produce records of the meetings with the appropriate fire, police and other public officials in order to demonstrate that it met the requirements of §192.615(c). 2. §192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices. (a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review and calculations. Suburban failed to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution systems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. Specifically, Suburban had no regulator station design information for the pressure limiting and regulating devices that would show that the determined or calculated capacities of the devices are sufficient to meet the pressure limits of §192.201(a). Additionally, Suburban was unable to provide records showing that the determined and calculated capacities of the pressure relief devices were reviewed for calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017. Additionally, PHMSA’s inspector found the documented regulator orifices for the Fisher 627 devices were incorrect for the regulator stations at Pine Crest II, Edgewood, Pineview and Terlingua. The orifice size was listed as 1-inch for the Fisher 627 with 1-inch body at the Pine Crest II, Edgewood, and Pineview stations. The largest orifice for this device is ½- inch. The orifice size was listed as 2-inch for the Fisher 627 with 2-inch body at the Terlingua station. Likewise, the largest orifice for this device is ½ inch. Suburban revised this information after being informed by PHMSA’s inspector. 2#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf, page 33. 4. §192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines (a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following: (1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part. . . (2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was tested after construction as follows . . . Suburban did not correctly determine the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) to be the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Suburban’s records listed the MAOP on each of its six systems as 15 psig, but the PHMSA inspector found house service regulators having a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10 psig. §192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations. (a) Each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station or group of those stations installed to protect a pipeline must have enough capacity, and must be set to operate, to insure the following: (1) . . . (2) In pipelines other than a low pressure distribution system: (i) . . . (iii) If the maximum allowable operating pressure is less than 12 p.s.i. (83 kPa) gage, the pressure may not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure plus 50 percent. Suburban did not correctly set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(2)(iii). Records showed that Suburban’s pressure relief devices were set between 19 and 19.5 psig for five regulator stations, located at Terlingua, Pineview, Bluffside, Pinecrest II, and Edgewood. This pressure setting is above the MAOP, exceeding the operating pressure by approximately 50 percent. The actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limited by house service regulators. Therefore, the maximum pressure setting of the relief valves would be 15 psig. 3#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf, page 4Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related series of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31, 2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $46,700 as follows: Item number PENALTY 2 4 $22,900 $23,800 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Suburban Propane, L.P. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. 4#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf, page 5In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 3-2019-0003 and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Allan C. Beshore Director, Central Director, OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings 5#

320190003_NOPV PCP PCO_11222019_text.pdf, page 6PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Suburban Propane, L.P. a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Suburban Propane, L.P. with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 4. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to keeping records of its liason meetings with fire, police and other public officials, Suburban shall establish its liason with fire, police and public officials as required by §192.615(c) and keep records of these meetings to show compliance with Part 192. Suburban, L.P. shall provide records of its 2019 liason meetings to the Central Region Director. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to records of regulator station design capacities, Suburban shall document the design of each regulator station and pressure limiting station to include calculations of capacities of the devices to show that they are sufficient for the conditions under which they operate. In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to determining the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of each segment, Suburban shall review the components of each system to determine the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment and update the MAOP determinations. Records of the MAOP determinations shall be keep. In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to setting pressure relief devices at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a)(iii), Suburban must adjust its pressure limiting and relieving devices to be in compliance with §192.201 and document the pressure settings if each device. Suburban shall complete and provide documentation of the actions taken for Items 1-4 of the Proposed Compliance Order to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Director, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within 90 days after receipt of a Final Order. It is requested (not mandated) that Suburban Propane, L.P. maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, OPS, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure. 6#

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDecember 18, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: konderdonk@suburbanpropane.com Mr. Keith P. Onderdonk Vice President, Operational Support Suburban Propane, LP 240 Route 10 West Whippany, New Jersey 07981 Re: CPF No. 3-2019-0003 Dear Mr. Onderdonk: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $29,466. It further finds that Suburban Propane, LP has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty has been paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure (Final Order) cc: Mr. Greg Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Ed Moreno, CSC Manager, Suburban Propane, LP, emoreno@suburbanpropane.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ In the Matter of ) Suburban Propane, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2019-0003 ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER From September 11, 2018, through September 13, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives 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 Suburban Pipeline, LP (Suburban or Respondent) in West Salem, and propane gas systems in La Crosse and Juneau counties, Wisconsin. Suburban is a nationwide distributer of propane, heating oil, and refined fuels, and markets natural gas and electricity in deregulated markets.1 Suburban is headquartered in New Jersey, operates in 41 states, and provides service to approximately 1 million residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural customers through 700 locations.2 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent by letter dated November 22, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice).3 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Suburban had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,700 for the alleged violations. Suburban responded to the Notice by letter dated February 12, 2020 (Response). The company contested the allegations, requested a hearing, and requested a copy of the civil penalty worksheet. Respondent also requested an informal conference call and specifically stated that it “[did] intend to seek available economic relief where possible.” On May 5, 2020, the Central 1 Suburban Propane website, About, available at https://www.suburbanpropane.com/about/ (last accessed November 13, 2020). 2 Id. 3 The original Notice went undelivered by the US Postal Service. On January 14, 2020, Central Region resent the Notice to a new address provided by Suburban. Suburban had 30 days from the date of receipt of the Notice to respond, as permitted under § 190.208.#

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf, page 3CPF 3-2019-0003 Page 2 Region provided the case file and civil penalty worksheet,4 and on May 20, 2020, held an informal conference call with Suburban. On June 4, 2020, Suburban withdrew its request for a hearing and noted that it no longer contested the alleged violations, proposed compliance order, or civil penalty proposed for Item 2. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b), which states: § 193.603 General provisions. (a) …. (b) Each operator shall keep records necessary to administer the procedures established under §192.605. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.603(b) by failing to keep records necessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605, which include the administering of Suburban’s emergency plans as required under §§ 192.605(e) and 192.615. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection, Suburban was unable to produce records of its meetings with the appropriate fire, police, and other public officials in order to demonstrate that it met the requirements of § 192.615(c). Suburban did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 193.603(b) by failing to keep records necessary to administer the procedures established under § 192.605. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a), which states: § 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices. (a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. Except as provided in §192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of §192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review and calculations. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution systems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities 4 Due to certain COVID-19 related mail restriction, Central Region did not review Suburban’s response until May 4, 2020.#

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf, page 4CPF 3-2019-0003 Page 3 to which they are connected. Specifically, Suburban had no regulator station design information for the pressure limiting and regulating devices that would show that the determined or calculated capacities of the devices are sufficient to meet the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). The Notice also alleged that Suburban was unable to provide records showing that the determined and calculated capacities of the devices were reviewed for calendar years 2015, 2016, and 2017. Additionally, the Notice alleged that the PHMSA inspector found that the documented regulator orifices for the Fisher 627 devices were incorrect for the regulator stations at Pine Crest II, Edgewood, Pineview, and Terlingua. Suburban did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) by failing to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution systems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a)5, which at the time of the violation stated in relevant part: § 192.619 Maximum allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines. (a) No person may operate a segment of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure that exceeds a maximum allowable operating pressure determined under paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or the lowest of the following: (1) The design pressure of the weakest element in the segment, determined in accordance with subparts C and D of this part… (2) The pressure obtained by dividing the pressure to which the segment was tested after construction as follows… The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a) by operating its pipeline at a maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) that exceeded the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Suburban’s records listed the MAOP on each of its six systems as 15 psig, but the PHMSA inspector found house service regulators having a maximum inlet pressure limit of 10 psig. Suburban did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.619(a) by operating its pipeline at an MAOP that exceeded the design pressure of the weakest element of the segment. Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii), which states: § 192.201 Required capacity of pressure relieving and limiting stations. (a) Each pressure relief station or pressure limiting station or group of those stations installed to protect a pipeline must have enough capacity, and 5 49 C.F.R. § 192.619 was amended effective July 1, 2020. However, the above-referenced violation and subsequent notice of said violation occurred prior to the date of amendment, and thus, said amendment is not applicable here.#

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf, page 5CPF 3-2019-0003 Page 4 must be set to operate, to insure the following: (1) …. (2) In pipelines other than a low pressure distribution system: (i) …. (iii) If the maximum allowable operating pressure is less than 12 p.s.i. (83 kPa) gage, the pressure may not exceed the maximum allowable operating pressure plus 50 percent. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) by failing to set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures that do not exceed the MAOP plus 50 percent. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Suburban’s records showed that its pressure relief devices were set between 19 and 19.5 psig for five regulator stations, located in Terlingua, Pineview, Bluffside, Pincrest II, and Edgewood. The Notice alleged that 19 and 19.5 psig exceeded the pressure setting permitted under § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) because the actual MAOP of the five stations is 10 psig, as limited by house service regulators. Therefore, the Notice stated, the maximum pressure setting of the relief valves would be 15 psig. In its Response, Suburban explained that it utilized the regulator manufacturer’s documentation to establish an MAOP of 15 psig. Suburban argued the setting of the station regulator relief valves would have been allowed under a separate provision, § 192.201(a)(2)(ii), that applies to pipelines with an MAOP of over 12 psig and that permits a relief set point of up to 21 psig, 6 psig over the established 15 psig. Suburban ultimately withdrew its contest for this allegation of violation by email to the Director. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) by failing to set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures that do not exceed the MAOP plus 50 percent. 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 related series of violations.6 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; 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 $46,700 for the violations cited above. 6 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.#

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf, page 6CPF 3-2019-0003 Page 5 Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a) for failing to determine, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once each calendar year, that the pressure relief devices at its six gas propane distribution systems had sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. Suburban neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying an elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.743(a). Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $23,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii), for failing to correctly set its pressure relief devices to operate at pressures consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii). As noted above, Suburban utilized the regulator manufacturer’s documentation to establish an MAOP of 15 psig. Suburban argued the setting of the station regulator relief valves would have been allowed under a separate provision, § 192.201(a)(2)(ii), that applies to pipelines with an MAOP of over 12 psig and that permits a relief set point of up to 21 psig, 6 psig over the established 15 psig. Suburban also explained during a May 20, 2020 conference call with the Director that it had changed the MAOPs from 10 psig to 15 psig on June 13, 2018, and was therefore only noncompliant for three months before PHMSA alerted Suburban of its noncompliance. Finally, Suburban stated that since PHMSA’s inspection, the pressure relief devices had been reset to 15 psig from 19 and 19.5 psig, and that the relief valves have been converted to monitor regulator stations as discussed in Item 1. Accordingly, Suburban requested that the civil penalty be withdrawn. Although Respondent did not comply with § 192.201(a)(2)(iii), I find based on the recommendation of the Director, that Suburban provided a reasonable justification for its noncompliance, which was predicated on a misinterpretation of the correct MAOP for the six segments. This misinterpretation warrants a reduction of the proposed civil penalty under the good faith credit, for the reasons stated in the paragraph above. Despite Suburban acting in good faith with regards to the misinterpretation, only a reduction of the civil penalty, rather than a withdrawal, is warranted. Evidence is needed to support further reducing the penalty under the considerations listed in 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, which Suburban did not provide. Regarding the nature and circumstances of the violation, PHMSA noted in the Violation Report that the alleged violation related to an equipment issue rather than a record issue, the noncompliance lasted longer than 10 days, and the violation had been discovered by PHMSA or a State Partner. Regarding gravity, PHMSA noted in the Violation Report that pipeline safety was minimally affected, which is the lowest possible selection; therefore, the proposed civil penalty has already accounted for the fact that pipeline integrity was never compromised. Regarding culpability, PHMSA noted in the Violation Report that Suburban failed to comply with the applicable requirement due to not determining the MAOP correctly. A credit is not due under this factor absent action by Respondent to correct the violation before PHMSA discovered it. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $6,566 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.201(a)(2)(iii). In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a reduced total civil penalty of $29,466. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49#

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf, page 7CPF 3-2019-0003 Page 6 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $29,466 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the United States. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.603(b), 192.743(a), 192.619(a), and 192.201(a)(2)(iii), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order: 1. With respect to the violation of § 192.603(b) (Item 1), Respondent established and maintained liaison with fire, police, and public officials as required by § 192.615(c). Additionally, Suburban provided documentation of its 2019 liaison meetings. Therefore, the conditions of the Proposed Compliance Order for this Item have been met. 2. With respect to the violation of § 192.743(a) (Item 2), Respondent has provided documentation to PHMSA reflecting corrective actions it has taken to convert all five stations to monitor regulating stations. Therefore, the conditions of the Proposed Compliance Order for this Item have been met. 3. With respect to the violation of § 192.619(a) (Item 3), Respondent has changed the MAOPs from 15 to 10 psig with the appropriate field adjustments made to each system and documented, and reviewed the MAOP for the tank and second stage segments of the systems and determined that no adjustments were necessary. Therefore, the conditions of the Proposed Compliance Order for this Item have been met. 4. With respect to the violation of § 192.201(a)(2)(iii) (Item 4), Respondent has provided documentation demonstrating that it has reset the pressure relief devices to 15 psig. Therefore, the conditions of the Proposed Compliance Order for this Item have been met.#

320190003_Final Order_12182020_text.pdf, page 8CPF 3-2019-0003 Page 7 Accordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. December 18, 2020 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#