# ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 32022040NOPV
- **title:** ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2022-02-17
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.611(a)(1)(i).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022040nopv.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022040nopv.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32022040nopv
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32022040NOPV
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ROCKIES EXPRESS PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 192.611(a)(1)(i). The case was opened on 2022-02-17 and is reported as closed as of 2023-12-15. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

32022040NOPV_Closure Letter_12152023_(20-179276).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_Closure%20Letter_12152023_(20-179276).pdf

32022040NOPV_Closure Letter_12152023_(20-179276)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_Closure%20Letter_12152023_(20-179276)_text.pdf

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_09122022_(20-179276).pdf

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 1)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_Op%20Resp%20to%20Notice%20and%20Req%20for%20Hrng%20and%20Stmnt%20of%20Issues%20(Part%201)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_Op%20Resp%20to%20Notice%20and%20Req%20for%20Hrng%20and%20Stmnt%20of%20Issues%20(Part%202)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf

32022040NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of RfH_09132022_(20-179276).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20RfH_09132022_(20-179276).pdf

32022040NOPV_PCO_02172022_(20-179276).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_PCO_02172022_(20-179276).pdf

32022040NOPV_PCO_02172022_(20-179276)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_PCO_02172022_(20-179276)_text.pdf

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_09012022_(20-179276).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_09012022_(20-179276).pdf

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_09012022_(20-179276)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_09012022_(20-179276)_text.pdf

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06172022_(20-179276).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06172022_(20-179276).pdf

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06172022_(20-179276)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32022040NOPV/32022040NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06172022_(20-179276)_text.pdf

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_09012022_(20-179276)_text.pdf

Date: September 1, 2022
From: Larry White
To: File
Re: Continuance of Hearing, Tallgrass Energy, LP
CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV
By electronic mail dated August 12, 2022, Catherine Little, Counsel for Tallgrass Energy, LP and
Joseph Hainline, Counsel for OPS Central Region, submitted a joint request for a continuance of the
hearing previously scheduled for August 31, 2022. The request explained that the parties were
moving forward with negotiation of a consent agreement to resolve the case which would make a
hearing unnecessary and the additional time was needed to conclude the negotiations.
I granted the request for a continuance until September 14, 2022 which will be the new hearing date
if resolution by consent agreement is not completed by that time.

32022040NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06172022_(20-179276)_text.pdf

June 17, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: catherine.little@troutman.com and gregory.ochs@dot.gov
Ms. Catherine D. Little, Esq.
Counsel for Tallgrass Energy, LP
Troutman Pepper, LLP
600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308
Mr. Gregory Ochs
Director, Central Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
901 Locust Street, Suite 480
Kansas City, MO 64106-2641
Re: Notice of Hearing, Tallgrass Energy, LP
CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV
Dear Ms. Little and Mr. Ochs:
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of
Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above-referenced case. The hearing will take
place on August 31, 2022, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Central Time.
The hearing will be held via videoconference. I will provide the videoconference information prior
to the hearing. At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by August 22, 2022), both parties
must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and
the name and email address of each attendee. This information should be provided electronically.
Materials not submitted by this date may be excluded.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Larry White
Presiding Official



cc: CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV
Page 2
Mr. William Moler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tallgrass Interstate Gas
Transmission, LLC, bill.moler@tallgrassenergylp.com
Ms. Jennifer Eckels, Manager – Compliance, Tallgrass Energy, LP,
jennifer.eckels@tallgrassenergylp.com
Mr. Joseph Hainline, Counsel, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,
joseph.hainline@dot.gov

32022040NOPV_Closure Letter_12152023_(20-179276)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: crystal.heter@tallgrassenergylp.com;
kale.stanton@tallgrass.com;
December 15, 2023
Crystal Heter
Chief Operating Officer
Tallgrass Energy, LP
370 Van Gordon Street
Lakewood, CO 80228
RE: CPF 3-2022-040-NOPV
Dear Ms. Heter:
On September 12, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement between PHMSA and
Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass) in the above-referenced case. This Order included a
Compliance Order requirement for Tallgrass to take certain corrective actions on its pipeline.
Per the terms of the Consent Agreement, the Consent Agreement would terminate if Tallgrass’
Special Permit application, requested March 11, 2022, was approved. On October 3, 2023,
PHMSA approved and issued the Special Permit, PHMSA Docket Number 2022-0044.
Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is terminated, and this case is now closed. Thank you for
your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Ochs
Director, Central Region, OPS
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Kale Stanton (kale.stanton@tallgrass.com

32022040NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of RfH_09132022_(20-179276).pdf

Before the
U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Office of Pipeline Safety
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of )
) CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV
Tallgrass Energy, L.P. ) Notice of Probable Violation
Respondent. )
)
)
)
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING
This notice is to advise that Tallgrass Energy, LP (Tallgrass) and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Central Region have reached an agreement that
resolves the above-referenced Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV). As a result, and as set forth
in the Consent Order and Agreement issued by PHMSA on September 12, 2022, Tallgrass is,
without admission, withdrawing its request for hearing.
PHMSA issued the NOPV to Tallgrass on February 17, 2022, alleging a single violation relating
to class location changes under 49 C.F.R. § 192.611 from Class 1 to Class 2. The NOPV included
a Proposed Compliance Order (PCO) requirement that sought to require Tallgrass to prepare a
work plan to lower the pressure of the Rockies Express Pipeline (REX) to ensure that the
corresponding hoop stress did not exceed 72% of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS)
in Class 2 locations. Tallgrass contested the alleged violation and requested a hearing, which was
scheduled for September 14, 2022.
The NOPV relates to a special permit issued in 2006 that authorized portions of REX to operate at
80% specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). Pipeline Safety: Grant of Waiver; Rockies
Express Pipeline, 71 Fed. Reg. 39141 (Jul. 11, 2006). As provided in its initial Response and
Request for Hearing, Tallgrass maintains that it properly operated the REX pipeline, including
Class 1 locations which became Class 2 locations due to population changes over the past fourteen
years, at 80% SMYS pursuant to the terms of the 2006 special permit, and the “one-class bump”
provision under the federal pipeline safety regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 192.611. Throughout the
operation of REX, both Tallgrass and the prior operator of REX expressly and consistently notified
PHMSA that portions of the pipeline located in Class 2 locations operated up to 80% SMYS.
Tallgrass believes that PHMSA had acknowledged and approved Tallgrass’s operational practices
and that these communications and the course of dealings, taken together, evidenced PHMSA’s
approval of the Company’s operation of Class 2 locations pursuant to the “one-class bump”
provision.
In addition to its communications and course of dealings with Tallgrass, PHMSA has indicated
that it “was likely an oversight” that the 2006 REX special permit did not address instances where
Class 1 locations changed to Class 2 locations and that “[s]ubsequent special permits (to other



entities) now address this issue.” Letter to Tallgrass Energy, LP, from PHMSA (Sept. 24, 2021).
When promulgating Alternative Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) regulations in
2008, PHMSA initially failed to address the use of Alternative MAOP in the context of class
location changes and commenters “noted that without addressing operation at alternative MAOP
in [§ 192.611], the regulations would effectively rescind the authorization provided by this rule to
operate at higher pressure whenever there was a change in class location.” Final Rule, Pipeline
Safety: Standards for Increasing the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure for Gas
Transmission Pipelines, 73 Fed. Reg. 62148, 62169 (Oct. 17, 2008). In the Final Rule, PHMSA
responded by expressly reaffirming the use of the “one-class bump” allowance at 49 C.F.R. §§
192.611 and 192.620(c)(8).
Tallgrass believes that it has operated Class 2 locations on the REX pipeline consistent with its
2006 special permit and the “one-class bump” provision as recognized by PHMSA and the federal
pipeline safety regulations. In the spirit of cooperation and consistent with its commitment to
pipeline safety, Tallgrass nevertheless sought to resolve this action through informal settlement in
coordination with the PHMSA Central Region. Pursuant to those discussions, Tallgrass, without
admission and for purposes of settlement only, entered into a Consent Agreement with PHMSA to
resolve this matter. As a result, and as required by the terms of the Consent Order and Agreement
issued by PHMSA, the Company is hereby withdrawing its request for hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Bracewell, LLP
Catherine Little, Esq.
Annie Cook, Esq.
2001 M Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C.
20036-3310
(202) 828-5800
Catherine.Little@Bracewell.com
Annie.Cook@Bracewell.com
Tallgrass Energy, LP
Nicole Longwell, Esq.
Associate General Counsel
(303) 763-3401
Nicole.Longwell@Tallgrass.com
Date: September 13, 2022
2

32022040NOPV_Op Resp to Notice and Req for Hrng and Stmnt of Issues (Part 2)_03182022_(20-179276).pdf

Before the U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Office of Pipeline Safety
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of )
) CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV
Tallgrass Energy, LP ) Notice of Probable Violation
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
Request for Hearing, Statement of Issues, and Response to NOPV
I. Introduction
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or the Agency) issued a
Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) and proposed compliance order (PCO) to Tallgrass Energy,
LP (Tallgrass or the Company) on February 17, 2022. The NOPV alleged a single violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.611 related to class location changes and included a PCO, which would require
Tallgrass to prepare a work plan and schedule to lower the pressure of its Rockies Express Pipeline
(REX) to ensure that the corresponding hoop stress does not exceed 72 percent of the specified
minimum yield strength (SMYS) in Class 2 locations. As provided by 49 C.F.R. § 190.208,
Tallgrass has 30 days to respond to the allegations in the NOPV and, therefore, this response is
timely.
The NOPV was issued as a result of an inspection initiated in March 2020 by the PHMSA Central
Region. The allegations relate to a history of authorizations, exchanges, and coordination with
PHMSA going back 16 years in connection with the operation of the REX pipeline and a special
permit issued to REX by PHMSA in July 2006. Tallgrass is committed to maintaining the safe
operation of its pipeline assets in compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations, including
49 C.F.R. § 192.611, and pursuant to the terms of the special permit issued in July 2006, as
affirmed by PHMSA and in reliance upon those clarifications. For this reason, Tallgrass is
contesting the allegations in the NOPV and the PCO.
At the same time, and in coordination with PHMSA and without admission, Tallgrass has a
supplemental special permit application pending with PHMSA which would address the issue
raised in the NOPV and more explicitly provide for the operation of the REX pipeline in Class 2
locations. Tallgrass took this step after lengthy discussions with PHMSA personnel over the past
year in an effort to resolve the class location change issue to PHMSA’s satisfaction.
Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, Tallgrass is filing this response to request an in-person hearing
to address the factual and legal issues in the NOPV under 49 C.F.R. § 192.611 and the PCO. At a



hearing, Tallgrass will be represented by in-house counsel as well as outside counsel with
Troutman Pepper.
II. Background
REX is one of the largest natural gas pipelines in the U.S., stretching 1,700 miles between
northwestern Colorado, Wyoming, and eastern Ohio. REX transports critical east-west bi-
directional supply between the Rocky Mountain and Appalachian regions to serve energy markets
across the United States. As such, REX provides access to abundant natural gas sources in both
basins, increasing the reliability, security, and supply to many high demand centers and large end-
users with direct connections to power plants, local distribution companies, and industrial
facilities. Derating the REX pipeline, as proposed in the PCO, would have a direct negative impact
on critical natural gas supplies, reliability and energy security for major demand centers across the
country.
Tallgrass is committed to the safe operation of the REX pipeline in compliance with the federal
pipeline safety regulations and the conditions in the special permit issued by PHMSA in July
2006.1 The special permit was issued prior to construction of the REX pipeline and authorizes its
operation at hoop stresses up to 80% SMYS in Class 1 locations and at a maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP) of 1,480 psig. The special permit imposes a variety of integrity
measures that exceed the federal pipeline safety standards, including increased construction and
design measures, hydrostatic pressure testing, and increased integrity management requirements.
The special permit was the first issued by PHMSA of a series of special permits authorizing certain
pipelines to operate at 80% SMYS. These special permits were the basis for a rule change in 2008,
allowing pipelines that comply with certain design, construction and operational requirements to
operate at an alternate MAOP up to 80% SMYS.
Since issuance of the special permit, approximately 3.52 miles of the REX pipeline (across various
short segments) have changed from Class 1 to Class 2 locations. Although the special permit does
not address class change locations specifically, the prior operator of the REX pipeline implemented
the “one class bump” provision as provided by 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611(a) and 192.620(c)(8) to
continue operating the Class 2 locations pursuant to the terms of the special permit and with
affirmation from PHMSA in 2009. Both Tallgrass and the prior operator of the REX pipeline also
provided notice of this practice to PHMSA yearly through two separate annual reporting
obligations (specified by the special permit and by the 49 C.F.R. Part 191 regulations) and in
correspondence in 2014. Further, PHMSA has consistently recognized the use of the “one class
bump” provision in its regulatory approach with respect to other existing special permits and its
promulgation of the alternate MAOP regulations in 2008.
It was not until over a decade after PHMSA affirmed the practice in writing, that representatives
of the Central Region assumed oversight of REX in January 2020 and inquired about Tallgrass’s
reliance on the “one class bump” provision. Since that time, Tallgrass has been actively working
with PHMSA to provide more information about the operation of its pipeline under the special
permit. To address the Agency’s concern and in coordination with PHMSA, Tallgrass has been,
1 Pipeline Safety: Grant of Waiver; Rockies Express Pipeline, 71 Fed. Reg. 39,141 (Jul. 11, 2006).
-2-



without admission, working since March 2021 to prepare a supplemental special permit to more
expressly authorize the continued operation of applicable Class 2 locations on the REX pipeline at
80% SMYS and an MAOP of 1,480 psig. The supplemental special permit application is pending
as of the time of this filing.
III. Response to NOPV Item 1 (49 C.F.R. § 192.611) and PCO
A. PHMSA NOPV Allegation
§ 192.611 Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum
allowable operating pressure.
(a) If the hoop stress corresponding to the established maximum
allowable operating pressure of a segment of pipeline is not
commensurate with the present class location, and the segment is in
satisfactory physical condition, the maximum allowable operating
pressure of that segment of pipeline must be confirmed or revised
according to one of the following requirements:
(1) If the segment involved has been previously tested in place for a
period of not less than 8 hours:
(i) The maximum allowable operating pressure is 0.8 times the test
pressure in Class 2 locations, 0.667 times the test pressure in Class 3
locations, or 0.555 times the test pressure in Class 4 locations. The
corresponding hoop stress may not exceed 72 percent of the SMYS of
the pipeline in Class 2 locations, 60 percent of SMYS in Class 3
locations, or 50 percent of SMYS in Class 4 locations.
The REX Pipeline has operated at a pressure that exceeds the maximum pressure allowed
in a Class 2 location. The REX Pipeline is a 42-inch diameter pipeline that was permitted
to operate up to 80 percent of SMYS in Class 1 locations only pursuant to a Special
Permit. The maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the REX Pipeline in
Class 1 locations is 1480 psig, which produces a potential impact radius (PIR) of at least
1115 feet. REX failed to confirm or revise the MAOP for segments of the REX Pipeline
in Class 2 locations to ensure that they were commensurate with the present class location.
Specifically, REX failed to ensure the corresponding hoop stress did not exceed 72
percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the REX Pipeline in Class 2
locations. PHMSA reviewed the REX 2017-2019 Change Studies per §§ 192.609 and
192.611, and SCADA alarm records. The records confirmed that the REX pipeline had
been operating at above 72 percent SMYS in Class 2 locations. All of the pipeline
segments located in Class 2 locations that were operating at above 72 percent of SMYS
were previously tested in place for a period of not less than 8 hours. REX was not
operating with an alternative MAOP under § 192.620 such that § 192.611(a)(ii) could
apply. As such, REX was required to limit its MAOP so that the corresponding hoop
stress would not exceed 72 percent of SMYS of the pipe in Class 2 locations. The
-3-



following 46 Class 2 locations were operated above 72 percent SMYS, in violation of the
regulations, as identified in 2021:
[. . .]
Additional segments may currently be operating in non-compliance, which must be
addressed by Tallgrass or they could be the subject of a future enforcement action.
B. Tallgrass Response
Tallgrass requests that NOPV Item 1 be withdrawn as a matter of fact and law. Tallgrass has and
continues to operate the REX pipeline consistent with the terms of its special permit and the federal
pipeline safety regulations, as affirmed by PHMSA. Given that the special permit is silent
regarding class location changes, and pursuant to prior direction and affirmation from PHMSA,
both the prior operator and Tallgrass provided notice to PHMSA of their reliance on the “one class
bump” provision as provided in 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611 and 192.620 to continue operating portions
of the REX pipeline that changed to Class 2 locations pursuant to the terms of its special permit.
In addition, the prior operator and Tallgrass regularly notified the Agency of the operation of the
REX line in Class 2 locations in accordance with the special permit through its special permit and
49 C.F.R. Part 191 annual reporting obligations and expressly referred to this practice in a 2014
letter to the Agency. In response and for over a decade, PHMSA acknowledged and authorized
Tallgrass’s operational practices in previous communications. Tallgrass has in good faith relied
on PHMSA’s prior representations and has operated the REX pipeline in accordance with those
representations. Moreover, Tallgrass’s application of the “one class bump” provision is consistent
with PHMSA’s representations and filings related to other similar special permits and PHMSA’s
promulgation of the alternate MAOP regulations at 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611 and 192.620.
As proposed, the PCO would require Tallgrass to lower the pressure of the REX pipeline in Class
2 locations, without providing any other options for compliance, and would directly and negatively
impact commerce by reducing the availability, reliability, and security of supply to critical demand
centers across the country.
For these reasons, Tallgrass requests that the PCO be withdrawn because PHMSA cannot establish
that the Company committed a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611.
IV. Preliminary Statement of Issues
A. Whether PHMSA is precluded from seeking this enforcement based on the
applicable statute of limitations.
B. Whether PHMSA should be equitably estopped from seeking enforcement against
Tallgrass, where the Agency previously approved of Tallgrass’s operation of
segments in Class 2 locations in compliance with its special permit and in
accordance with the “one class bump” provision and Tallgrass’s operation of the
Class 2 segments was consistent with PHMSA’s established regulatory practice.
-4-



C. D. E. F. G. H. Whether PHMSA is precluded from seeking this enforcement based on the
equitable doctrines of laches or waiver, where the Agency previously approved of
Tallgrass’s operation of segments in Class 2 locations in compliance with the
special permit and in accordance with the “one class bump” provision and
Tallgrass’s operation of the Class 2 segments was consistent with PHMSA’s
established regulatory practice.
Whether PHMSA has met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that Tallgrass did not comply with requirements 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.611,
192.620(c)(8) or the conditions of its existing special permit, as clarified by
PHMSA’s representations.
Whether PHMSA’s allegation of noncompliance is arbitrary and capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), constitutes disparate treatment of
similarly situated parties without reasoned explanation and substantial evidence in
the record, and/or violates requirements of due process and fair notice.
Whether the PCO associated with NOPV Item 1 should be withdrawn because there
is no violation and/or in light of the pending supplemental special permit
application; or, in the alternative, whether the PCO should be modified to provide
for alternative means of compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations.
Whether PHMSA PCO would unduly burden interstate commerce or unreasonably
impact Tallgrass’s ability to comply with its contractual obligations related to
provision of gas.
Whether the NOPV and PCO are consistent with PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety
Enforcement Procedures policy manual with respect to fair, consistent, and timely
enforcement.
Tallgrass reserves the right to supplement this statement of issues in response to any additional
evidence and argument provided by PHMSA.
V. Summary and Request for Relief
For all of the reasons identified above, and in consideration of other matters as justice may require,
Tallgrass respectfully requests that NOPV Item 1 and the PCO be withdrawn. In advance of the
requested hearing, and pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.209, Tallgrass requests a copy of the complete
case file in this matter, beyond the Pipeline Safety Violation Report and its exhibits which have
already been provided.
Respectfully submitted,
Troutman Pepper, LLP
Catherine D. Little, Esq.
-5-



Annie M. Cook, Esq.
600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 885-3000
Catherine.Little@troutman.com
Annie.Cook@troutman.com
Tallgrass Energy, LP
Assistant General Counsel
Nicole Longwell, Esq.
(303) 763 3401
Nicole.longwell@tallgrassenergylp.com
Date: March 18, 2022
-6-

32022040NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_09122022_(20-179276)_text.pdf

September 12, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: bill.moler@tallgrassenergylp.com
William Moler
President and Chief Executive Officer
Tallgrass Energy, LP
2400 W. 115th Street, Suite 350
Leawood, KS 66211
CPF 3-2022-040-NOPV
Dear Mr. Moler:
Enclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement
between the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Rockies
Express Pipeline, LLC, a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP, which was executed on September
8, 2022. Service of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement by electronic mail is deemed
effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Sincerely,
Alan K Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosures: Consent Agreement and Consent Order
Cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Catherine Little, outside counsel for Tallgrass, catherine.little@troutman.com
Ms. Jennifer Eckels, Compliance Manager, Tallgrass, jennifer.eckels@tallgrass.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV
a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
CONSENT ORDER
By letter dated February 17, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA), issued a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, a
subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP (Respondent).
In response to the Notice, Respondent contested the allegation of violation and associated
proposed compliance order for Item 1 and requested a hearing (Response). Respondent also
asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the issues it raised in its
Response. Respondent and PHMSA (the Parties) subsequently met on several occasions. As a
result of those discussions the Respondent agreed to a finding of violation, without admission to
the underlying facts, and to take certain corrective actions as detailed in the accompanying
Consent Agreement.
Accordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this
Order. Tallgrass is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement, effective
immediately.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent Order may result in the
assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.
The terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
September 12, 2022
_________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC )
a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP ) CPF No. 3-2022-040-NOPV
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
CONSENT AGREEMENT
From March 2 through March 6, 2020, a representative 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 the records of Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC (REX or
Respondent), a subsidiary of Tallgrass Energy, LP, in Lakewood, Colorado. PHMSA also
reviewed additional information provided by Respondent after March 6, 2020, as part of this
inspection.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent
by letter dated February 17, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance
Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice alleged that Respondent
committed a probable violation of 49 C.F.R. part 192 and proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violation.
In response to the Notice, Respondent contested the allegation of violation, requested a hearing,
and asked for the opportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the alleged violation
(Response). The allegation relates to operation of certain pipeline segments on REX covered by
a special permit issued by PHMSA in 2006 and the course of dealing and exchange of
information between PHMSA and REX (the Parties) under that special permit.
The Parties subsequently met to discuss the allegation of violation. As a result of those
discussions and as explained in more detail below, PHMSA has agreed to certain factual
clarifications associated with the allegation of violation and Respondent, without admission, has
agreed to withdraw its hearing request and accept the finding of violation as alleged in the
Notice, subject to the clarifications as set forth below, and to undertake certain corrective
measures.
Having agreed that settlement of this enforcement action will avoid further administrative
proceedings or litigation and will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of



the environment, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. part 190, and upon consent and agreement of Respondent
and PHMSA, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
I. General Provisions
1. Respondent acknowledges that as the operator of the pipeline facilities subject to
the Notice, Respondent and its referenced gas pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of
the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and
administrative orders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Agreement, Respondent
acknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the
Notice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq.,
and the regulations and orders issued thereunder.
2. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s
representative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending
that the Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative
order (Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement
constitute an offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted,
the Associate Administrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement.
3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives
any further procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights
to contest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement,
including all rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except as set forth herein.
4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its
officers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons otherwise
bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any incorporated work
plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents whose duties might
reasonably include compliance with this Agreement.
5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and
understanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement.
The Parties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings
relating to settlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the
terms of this Agreement may be construed by reference to the Notice.
6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to
comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101,
et seq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters
PHMSA’s right of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA’s authority to
bring enforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the
regulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law.
7. For all transfers of ownership or operating responsibility of Respondent’s pipeline
system referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective



transferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the
transfer to the PHMSA Central Regional Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.
8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or
regulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a
permit, or a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.
Respondent remains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable
Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and permits.
9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any
third party not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for
any injuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or
its officers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement.
Respondent agrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers,
employees, agents, and representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts
or omissions of Respondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this
Agreement.
10. Respondent neither admits nor denies any allegation or conclusion in the Notice
or this Agreement but agrees for purposes of this Agreement to comply with the terms of this
Agreement.
11. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, the Parties agree to the following terms.
II. Finding of Violation
12. Item 1: 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(a)(1)(i): The Notice alleged Respondent failed to
confirm or revise the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) for segments of REX in
certain Class 2 locations to ensure that they were commensurate with the present class location.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent failed to ensure the corresponding hoop stress
did not exceed 72 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of REX in certain
Class 2 locations. In its Response, Respondent contested the allegation of violation in its
entirety. Respondent holds an existing special permit that was issued by PHMSA in 2006
which, in relevant part, authorizes REX to operate up to 80% SMYS in Class 1 locations. The
special permit does not address changes in class location. Since placing the pipeline into
service, the prior operator of REX and Respondent provided periodic updates to PHMSA with
updates regarding class location changes and operating pressure. Respondent maintains that
communications and course of dealings between Respondent and PHMSA about operation of
certain segments of REX at 80% SMYS in Class 2 locations, which are subject to the special
permit conditions, evidenced approval of such operating conditions. PHMSA maintains that it
never approved operation of the special permit segments above 72% SMYS in areas other than
Class 1 locations as set forth in the special permit conditions. Upon further discussions between
the Parties, Respondent, without admission and for purposes of settlement, has agreed to accept
a finding of violation and withdraw its hearing request upon execution of this Agreement. As
such, PHMSA finds a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.611(a)(1)(i).



13. Item 1 will be considered by PHMSA as a prior offense in any future PHMSA
enforcement action taken against Respondent for the 5-year period following the Effective Date
of this Agreement.
III. Special Permit Application and Limitations
14. The Notice proposed certain compliance order actions to address the non-
compliance alleged in Item 1. As a result of the Parties’ informal discussions, the Parties have
agreed to the following:
A. Respondent has, without admission, applied for a supplemental class location special
permit (Special Permit application) under 49 C.F.R. § 190.341 for certain pipeline
segments in Class 2 locations to allow for continued operation above 72% SMYS,
including the very same segments in the Notice. The public comment period for this
Special Permit application ended on June 27, 2022. See 87 Fed. Reg. 32233 (May 27,
2022); PHMSA Docket No. 2022-0044.
B. If approved, the proposed Special Permit conditions shall apply, and this Agreement
will terminate.
C. Unless or until the Special Permit application is approved by PHMSA, Respondent
will proceed to comply with the obligations set forth below in Paragraph 15, except
for Paragraph 15.B. If the Special Permit application is denied by PHMSA or
withdrawn by Respondent, Respondent shall also proceed with the obligations
specified in Paragraph 15.B.
D. Respondent reserves the right to seek additional special permits or pursue conversion
to alternative MAOP per 49 C.F.R. § 192.620.
IV. Compliance Plan
15. In regard to Item 1 of the Notice, Respondent shall perform the following
actions, subject to the limitations set forth in Paragraph 14, applicable to the areas identified in
the Notice operating above 72% SMYS in Class 2 locations:
A. Intermediate Actions Until the Grant or Denial of the Special Permit.
i. Work Plan. Within 45 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement,
Respondent will prepare and submit for Director approval a Work Pla
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 53398