{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 32024056NOPV","title":"EXPRESS HOLDINGS (USA), LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2024-10-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.264(b)(1)(i), 195.505(a), 195.563(a), 195.573(a)(1), 195.573(e).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024056nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024056nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-32024056nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/32024056NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EXPRESS HOLDINGS (USA), LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.264(b)(1)(i),  195.505(a),  195.563(a),  195.573(a)(1),  195.573(e). The case was opened on 2024-10-25 and is reported as closed as of 2025-11-12. Proposed civil penalty: $114,600. Assessed civil penalty: $114,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n32024056NOPV_Closure Letter_11122025_(23-264602).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11122025_(23-264602).pdf\n\n32024056NOPV_Closure Letter_11122025_(23-264602)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11122025_(23-264602)_text.pdf\n\n32024056NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(23-264602).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Final%20Order_09262025_(23-264602).pdf\n\n32024056NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(23-264602)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Final%20Order_09262025_(23-264602)_text.pdf\n\n32024056NOPV_Operator Response to Notice (Supplemental) and Request for PCP Reconsideration_05052025_(23-264602).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20(Supplemental)%20and%20Request%20for%20PCP%20Reconsideration_05052025_(23-264602).pdf\n\n32024056NOPV_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Informal Meeting and Request for Time Extension_11252024_(23-264602).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Informal%20Meeting%20and%20Request%20for%20Time%20Extension_11252024_(23-264602).pdf\n\n32024056NOPV_PCP PCO_10252024_(23-264602).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_PCP%20PCO_10252024_(23-264602).pdf\n\n32024056NOPV_PCP PCO_10252024_(23-264602)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_PCP%20PCO_10252024_(23-264602)_text.pdf\n\n32024056NOPV_Closure Letter_11122025_(23-264602)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\n901 Locust Street, Suite 480\nKansas City, MO 64106\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kevin.ruffatto@enbridge.com;\neric.anderson@enbridge.com; jeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com\nNovember 12, 2025\nMr. Kevin Ruffatto\nVice President of US Operations\nExpress Holdings (USA), LLC\n915 N Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100\nHouston Texas 77079\nRE: CPF No. 3-2024-056-NOPV\nDear Mr. Ruffatto:\nOn September 26, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC (Express) a Final Order, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.213\nin the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty\nassessment. Based on our review of the documentation provided and confirmation of payment of\nthe civil penalty, it has been determined that Express has complied with the terms of the Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nDavid Barrett\nActing Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Eric Anderson, Senior Compliance Advisor, Audits and Inspections, U.S. Pipeline\nCompliance, Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC, eric.anderson@enbridge.com\nJeff Cremin, Manager, U.S. Liquid Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge,\njeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com\n\n32024056NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(23-264602)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nSeptember 26, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kevin.ruffatto@enbridge.com\nMr. Kevin Ruffatto\nVice President of United States Operations\nExpress Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC\n915 North Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100\nHouston, Texas 77079\nRe: CPF No. 3-2024-056-NOPV\nDear Mr. Ruffatto:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of the\nallegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $114,600,\nand specifies actions that need to be taken by Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When\nthe civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined\nby the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as\nprovided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. David Barrett, Acting Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Eric Anderson, Senior Compliance Advisor, Audits and Inspections, U.S. Pipeline\nCompliance, Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC, eric.anderson@enbridge.com\nMr. Jeff Cremin, Manager, U.S. Liquid Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge,\njeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com\n\n\n\n2\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nExpress Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2024-056-NOPV\na subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc. )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom February 13 through July 27, 2023, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Express\nHoldings (U.S.A.), LLC (Express Holdings or Respondent), a subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc.\n(Enbridge) in Duluth, Minnesota and Buffalo, Montana.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated October 25, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Express Holdings had committed five violations of 49 CFR Part 195 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $114,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nEnbridge responded to the Notice on behalf of Express Holdings by letter dated November 25,\n2024 (Response). In its Response, Enbridge contested one of the allegations of violation, offered\nadditional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed compliance\norder be modified. On May 5, 2025, Enbridge submitted a Supplemental Response, where it\nargued the proposed civil penalty should be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a\nhearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.264(b)(1)(i), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency venting or\npressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.\n(a) …\n(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section\nrequires the following for aboveground breakout tanks specified:\n(1) For tanks built to API Spec 12F, API Std 620, and others (such as\nAPI Std 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C)), the installation of\nimpoundment must be in accordance with the following sections of NFPA-\n30 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3);\n(i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in accordance\nwith section 22.11.2;\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.264(b)(1)(i) by failing to install\nimpoundment around a breakout tank in accordance with section 22.11.2 of NFPA-30, as\nrequired. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, PHMSA observed\nthat three of Respondent’s breakout tanks (tanks 208, 209, and 210) at the Buffalo Tank Farm in\nBuffalo, Montana did not have subdivided tank impoundment, drainage channels, or intermediate\ndikes installed between tanks. NFPA-30, section 22.11.2.6 requires that diked areas be\nsubdivided in areas containing two or more breakout tanks. This is to prevent spills from one\ntank endangering other tanks in the same diked area.\nEnbridge, responding for Express Holdings, stated in its Response that it did not contest this\nallegation in the Notice.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.264(b)(1)(i) by failing to follow the requirements of NFPA-30, section 22.11.2 regarding\nthe impoundment of breakout tanks 208, 209, and 210 at the Buffalo Tank Farm.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.505(a), which states:\n§ 195.505 Qualification Program\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify cover tasks.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.505(a) by failing to identify the\ncovered task of performing a shutdown of a liquid pipeline in the field, as required. The Notice\nalleged a review of the Enbridge procedures Express Holdings followed, including Appendix C\nof Enbridge Liquids Pipelines Operator Qualification Plan, revealed that it only included a\ncontrol center shutdown of a liquid pipeline a covered task, not a shutdown in the field.\nEnbridge, responding for Express Holdings, contested this Item in its Response, stating that it\nagreed this specific task was a covered task, and provided information to demonstrate that its\npersonnel were adequately trained and qualified to perform it prior to the inspection. In the\nResponse, Enbridge asserted that it had already identified shutting down a liquid pipeline in the\n\n\n\n3\nfield as a covered task to be added to its Qualification Plan prior to the inspection. Further, it\nmaintained that that it had already made steps to amend the Qualification Plan accordingly, at the\ntime of the inspection. In the Response, Enbridge also included a copy of its task “Perform\nShutdown of a Liquid Pipeline (Field),” which it fully implemented on November 21, 2023.\nIn a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director, Central\nRegion, recommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 195.505(a) stating that the new\nevidence provided in the Response adequately demonstrated that prior to the inspection Express\nHoldings had identified the covered task of performing a shutdown of a liquid pipeline in the\nfield in its Qualification Plan and had trained its field personnel in that task.\nBased upon the foregoing, I hereby order that the Item be withdrawn.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a), which states:\n§ 195.563 Which pipelines must have cathodic protection?\n(a) Each buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed, relocated\nreplaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in § 195.401(c)\nmust have cathodic protection. The cathodic protection must be in operation\nnot later than 1 year after the pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or\notherwise changed, as applicable.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a) by failing to ensure that its\nburied pipelines that were constructed after March 31, 1970 were cathodically protected.1\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the steel pipeline segments from the Faulkners, Lost Cabin,\nWarren, Fish Creek, and Banjo pump stations to the fiberglass overflow sump tanks were not\ncathodically protected, even though the pump stations were constructed in 1996 and 2005.\nFurther, the Notice stated that Express Holdings acknowledged in a response to PHMSA’s\npreliminary 90-day report that the pipeline segments had been incorrectly identified as fiberglass\npiping but upon review of its records, were actually coated steel. Respondent asserted that it had\nboth corrected the information in its records and scheduled the installation of a magnesium anode\nfor cathodic protection.\nEnbridge, responding for Express Holdings, stated in its Response that it did not contest this\nallegation in the Notice.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.563(a) by failing to ensure its buried steel pipelines that were constructed after March 31,\n1970 had cathodic protection.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.573(a)(1), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by the subpart complies with\n1 See 49 CFR § 195.401(c)(1).\n\n\n\n4\n§ 195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those\nintervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or\nineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3\ncalendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct tests\non protected pipelines to determine whether the cathodic protection complies with § 195.571 at\nleast once each calendar year, at intervals that do not exceed 15 months. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that a review of the operator’s records revealed that Express Holdings failed to conduct\nthe required testing at the proper interval for 382 separate instances during the calendar years of\n2021 and 2022. In addition to those instances, the Notice also alleged that there were three test\npoints on Line 40 that could not be physically located and therefore were skipped by the\nsurveyor during the calendar year of 2020, and that breakout Tank 203 24-inch inlet pipe was not\ntested during the calendar year of 2021.\nEnbridge, responding for Express Holdings, stated in its Response that it did not contest this\nallegation in the Notice.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct tests on its protected pipelines to determine if the cathodic\nprotection complies with § 195.571 at least once every calendar year at intervals not to exceed 15\nmonths.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.573(e), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) …\n(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in\ncorrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency\ninvolves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452,\nyou much correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.573(e) by failing to correct identified\ndeficiencies in its corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). Section 195.401(b)(1) states in\npart that “[w]henever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect the safe\noperation of its pipeline, it must correct the condition in a reasonable time.” Further, Express\nHoldings, following Enbridge’s procedures, required that once discovered, a corrosion control\ndeficiency must be corrected within 15 months from the date of discovery. The Notice alleged\nthat in seven separate instances, a review of the operator’s records revealed that Express\nHoldings had failed to correct identified corrosion control deficiencies within 15 months from\nthe dates of their discovery.\nEnbridge, responding for Express Holdings, stated in its Response that it did not contest this\nallegation in the Notice.\n\n\n\n5\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.573(e) by failing to timely correct identified deficiencies in its corrosion control.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty exceeding\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, with a maximum administrative civil\npenalty exceeding $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.2\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $114,600 for the violations cited above. Effective\nMay 20, 2025 PHMSA revised its proposed civil penalty calculation policy and now uses the\nversion of the Civil Penalty Worksheet which was in effect on the date the alleged violation\nended or the last date of the onsite inspection, whichever is earlier. This change did not affect the\nproposed civil penalty for any of the Items in the Notice.3\nIn its Response, Enbridge neither contested the underlying violations of Items 1, 4, and 5 nor\npresented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction of the civil penalties for these Items.\nAccordingly, Enbridge waived its opportunity to contest the proposed penalty amounts.\nIn a Supplemental Response submitted over five months later, Enbridge argued the proposed\npenalty should be reduced or waived on the basis that PHMSA had not provided a detailed\nmethodology of how the penalty was calculated. Enbridge further contended that based on its\nsafety culture and ongoing efforts to comply with the pipeline safety regulations, the civil\npenalty should be reduced or eliminated. Having already waived its opportunity to contest the\npenalty, I find the Supplemental Response was untimely, per 49 CFR § 190.208. Further, as\ndiscussed in more detail below, after reviewing the record, I find the proposed penalty amount is\nsupported by the above-referenced assessment criteria and evidence in the record.4\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n3 Letter from Acting Director, Central Region, to Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC dated June 18, 2025.\n4 The Notice included the legal citations that establish the assessment criteria used by PHMSA to calculate the\npenalty. PHMSA also makes available in all proceedings a detailed calculation worksheet, which may be requested\n\n\n\n6\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 195.264(b)(1)(i), for failing to satisfy the requirements of NFPA-30, section 22.11.2 regarding\nthe impoundment area around breakout tanks.\nWith respect to the gravity of the violation, the Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation\nReport) in Part E6 indicated that pipeline safety was minimally affected. Therefore, the penalty\ncalculation appropriately reflected that the violation did not constitute a significant safety\nconcern. As indicated in the Violation Report Part E5, PHMSA discovered the violation, it was\nnot self-disclosed by Enbridge. In Part E7, Respondent did not receive a possible culpability\ncredit because Enbridge did not take actions to correct the violation before PHMSA learned of\nthe violation.\n5 For these reasons, I find the proposed civil penalty is supported by the facts in the\nrecord. Having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a\ncivil penalty of $37,200 for violation of 49 CFR § 195.264(b)(1)(i).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 195.573(a)(1), for failing to conduct tests to monitor the adequacy of the cathodic protection on\nits protected pipelines at least once each calendar year at intervals that did not exceed 15 months.\nWith respect to the gravity of the violation, the Violation Report in Part E6 indicated that\npipeline safety was minimally affected; therefore, the penalty calculation appropriately reflected\nthat the violation did not constitute a significant safety concern. As indicated in the Violation\nReport Part E5, PHMSA discovered the violation, it was not self-disclosed by Enbridge. In Part\nE7, the Violation Report correctly noted Enbridge did not take actions to correct the violation\nbefore PHMSA learned of the violation. For these reasons, I find the proposed civil penalty is\nsupported by the facts in the record. Having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $41,700 for violation of 49 CFR § 195.573(a)(1).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 195.573(e), for failing to timely correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control as required\nby § 195.401(b).\nWith respect to the gravity of the violation, the Violation Report in Part E6 indicated that\npipeline safety was minimally affected; therefore, the penalty calculation appropriately reflected\nthat the violation did not constitute a significant safety concern. As indicated in Part E5, PHMSA\ndiscovered the violation, it was not self-disclosed by Enbridge. Part E7 correctly noted Enbridge\ndid not take actions to correct the violation before PHMSA learned of the violation. For these\nreasons, I find the proposed civil penalty is supported by the facts in the record. Having reviewed\nthe record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,700\nby a respondent along with other records as provided by 49 U.S.C. § 60117(b)(1)(C) and 49 CFR § 190.209.\nEnbridge never requested these materials. Notwithstanding, Central Region produced the case file, including the\npenalty calculation worksheet, after receiving the Supplemental Response.\n5 See In the Matter of Oasis Midstream Partners LP, a General Partner of Oasis Petroleum Inc., Final Order 3-\n2019-5020, 2020 WL 6870720 at 7 (August 19, 2020) (“While Oasis is to be commended for improving its internal\nprocesses to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations, such post-inspection activities do not warrant\nthe withdrawal of, or a reduction in, a proposed civil penalty.”)\n\n\n\n7\nfor violation of 49 CFR § 195.573(e).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $114,600.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 CFR § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 CFR § 901.9 and 49 CFR § 89.23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in\nreferral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the\nUnited States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 CFR §§ 195.264(b)(1)(i), 195.505(a), and 195.563(a), respectively. Under 49\nU.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who\nowns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards\nestablished under chapter 601. As discussed above, Item 2 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the\ncompliance terms proposed in the Notice for that Item are not included in this Order.\nWith regard to the violation of § 195.563(a) (Item 3), Respondent requested the compliance\ndeadline be modified to allow until June 30, 2025 for it to complete the proposed compliance\nterms for this Item, contending that since receipt of the Notice dated October 25, 2024, Enbridge\nhad been actively engaged in testing and planning the remediation of the cited deficiencies in its\ncathodic protection system. The Director agreed with Respondent’s request and granted the\nextension in a letter dated February 6, 2025. Since the June 30, 2025 extension is now passed, it\nis not necessary to modify the terms of the Compliance Order.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered\nto take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable\nto its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.264(b)(1)(i) (Item 1), Respondent must:\n(i) Subdivide the tanks’ impoundment areas by constructing either drainage\nchannels or intermediate dikes, in accordance with NFPA 30, at the Buffalo,\nMontana, facility within 12 months of receipt of the Final Order.\n\n\n\n8\n(ii) Submit to the Director evidence of remediated locations to\ndemonstrate compliance with NFPA 30 within 12 months of the receipt of the\nFinal Order.\n(iii) Send an update to the Director every 90 days following receipt the Final\nOrder regarding the progress of the impoundment construction.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.563(a) (Item 3), Respondent must:\n(i) Design and install cathodic protection at the steel pipelines that connect to the\nfiberglass sump tanks at the Faulkners, Lost Cabin, Warren, Fish Creek, and\nBanjo and pump stations no later than 30 days after receipt of this Final Order.\n(ii) Submit to the Director evidence of remediated locations to demonstrate\ncompliance with § 195.563(a) no later than 30 days after receipt of this Final\nOrder.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nexceeding $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for\neach violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 CFR § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The filing of a\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the\norder, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in\naccordance with 49 CFR § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28800}