# EXPRESS HOLDINGS (USA), LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

32024056NOPV_Closure Letter_11122025_(23-264602).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11122025_(23-264602).pdf

32024056NOPV_Closure Letter_11122025_(23-264602)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11122025_(23-264602)_text.pdf

32024056NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(23-264602).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Final%20Order_09262025_(23-264602).pdf

32024056NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(23-264602)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_Final%20Order_09262025_(23-264602)_text.pdf

32024056NOPV_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

32024056NOPV_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

32024056NOPV_PCP PCO_10252024_(23-264602).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_PCP%20PCO_10252024_(23-264602).pdf

32024056NOPV_PCP PCO_10252024_(23-264602)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/32024056NOPV/32024056NOPV_PCP%20PCO_10252024_(23-264602)_text.pdf

32024056NOPV_Closure Letter_11122025_(23-264602)_text.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
901 Locust Street, Suite 480
Kansas City, MO 64106
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kevin.ruffatto@enbridge.com;
eric.anderson@enbridge.com; jeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com
November 12, 2025
Mr. Kevin Ruffatto
Vice President of US Operations
Express Holdings (USA), LLC
915 N Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100
Houston Texas 77079
RE: CPF No. 3-2024-056-NOPV
Dear Mr. Ruffatto:
On September 26, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC (Express) a Final Order, pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.213
in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty
assessment. Based on our review of the documentation provided and confirmation of payment of
the civil penalty, it has been determined that Express has complied with the terms of the Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
David Barrett
Acting Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Eric Anderson, Senior Compliance Advisor, Audits and Inspections, U.S. Pipeline
Compliance, Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC, eric.anderson@enbridge.com
Jeff Cremin, Manager, U.S. Liquid Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge,
jeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com

32024056NOPV_Final Order_09262025_(23-264602)_text.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
September 26, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: kevin.ruffatto@enbridge.com
Mr. Kevin Ruffatto
Vice President of United States Operations
Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC
915 North Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100
Houston, Texas 77079
Re: CPF No. 3-2024-056-NOPV
Dear Mr. Ruffatto:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of the
allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $114,600,
and specifies actions that need to be taken by Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC to comply with
the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When
the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined
by the Director, Central Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final
Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as
provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda Daugherty
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. David Barrett, Acting Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Eric Anderson, Senior Compliance Advisor, Audits and Inspections, U.S. Pipeline
Compliance, Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC, eric.anderson@enbridge.com
Mr. Jeff Cremin, Manager, U.S. Liquid Pipeline Compliance, Enbridge,
jeffrey.cremin@enbridge.com



2
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 )
Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2024-056-NOPV
a subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc. )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From February 13 through July 27, 2023, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative 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 Express
Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC (Express Holdings or Respondent), a subsidiary of Enbridge, Inc.
(Enbridge) in Duluth, Minnesota and Buffalo, Montana.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated October 25, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Express Holdings had committed five violations of 49 CFR Part 195 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $114,600 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Enbridge responded to the Notice on behalf of Express Holdings by letter dated November 25,
2024 (Response). In its Response, Enbridge contested one of the allegations of violation, offered
additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed compliance
order be modified. On May 5, 2025, Enbridge submitted a Supplemental Response, where it
argued the proposed civil penalty should be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a
hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.264(b)(1)(i), which states:



2
§ 195.264 Impoundment, protection against entry, normal/emergency venting or
pressure/vacuum relief for aboveground breakout tanks.
(a) …
(b) After October 2, 2000, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section
requires the following for aboveground breakout tanks specified:
(1) For tanks built to API Spec 12F, API Std 620, and others (such as
API Std 650 (or its predecessor Standard 12C)), the installation of
impoundment must be in accordance with the following sections of NFPA-
30 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3);
(i) Impoundment around a breakout tank must be installed in accordance
with section 22.11.2;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.264(b)(1)(i) by failing to install
impoundment around a breakout tank in accordance with section 22.11.2 of NFPA-30, as
required. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, PHMSA observed
that three of Respondent’s breakout tanks (tanks 208, 209, and 210) at the Buffalo Tank Farm in
Buffalo, Montana did not have subdivided tank impoundment, drainage channels, or intermediate
dikes installed between tanks. NFPA-30, section 22.11.2.6 requires that diked areas be
subdivided in areas containing two or more breakout tanks. This is to prevent spills from one
tank endangering other tanks in the same diked area.
Enbridge, responding for Express Holdings, stated in its Response that it did not contest this
allegation in the Notice.
Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR
§ 195.264(b)(1)(i) by failing to follow the requirements of NFPA-30, section 22.11.2 regarding
the impoundment of breakout tanks 208, 209, and 210 at the Buffalo Tank Farm.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.505(a), which states:
§ 195.505 Qualification Program
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify cover tasks.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.505(a) by failing to identify the
covered task of performing a shutdown of a liquid pipeline in the field, as required. The Notice
alleged a review of the Enbridge procedures Express Holdings followed, including Appendix C
of Enbridge Liquids Pipelines Operator Qualification Plan, revealed that it only included a
control center shutdown of a liquid pipeline a covered task, not a shutdown in the field.
Enbridge, responding for Express Holdings, contested this Item in its Response, stating that it
agreed this specific task was a covered task, and provided information to demonstrate that its
personnel were adequately trained and qualified to perform it prior to the inspection. In the
Response, Enbridge asserted that it had already identified shutting down a liquid pipeline in the



3
field as a covered task to be added to its Qualification Plan prior to the inspection. Further, it
maintained that that it had already made steps to amend the Qualification Plan accordingly, at the
time of the inspection. In the Response, Enbridge also included a copy of its task “Perform
Shutdown of a Liquid Pipeline (Field),” which it fully implemented on November 21, 2023.
In a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director, Central
Region, recommended withdrawing the alleged violation of § 195.505(a) stating that the new
evidence provided in the Response adequately demonstrated that prior to the inspection Express
Holdings had identified the covered task of performing a shutdown of a liquid pipeline in the
field in its Qualification Plan and had trained its field personnel in that task.
Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that the Item be withdrawn.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a), which states:
§ 195.563 Which pipelines must have cathodic protection?
(a) Each buried or submerged pipeline that is constructed, relocated
replaced, or otherwise changed after the applicable date in § 195.401(c)
must have cathodic protection. The cathodic protection must be in operation
not later than 1 year after the pipeline is constructed, relocated, replaced, or
otherwise changed, as applicable.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.563(a) by failing to ensure that its
buried pipelines that were constructed after March 31, 1970 were cathodically protected.1
Specifically, the Notice alleged that the steel pipeline segments from the Faulkners, Lost Cabin,
Warren, Fish Creek, and Banjo pump stations to the fiberglass overflow sump tanks were not
cathodically protected, even though the pump stations were constructed in 1996 and 2005.
Further, the Notice stated that Express Holdings acknowledged in a response to PHMSA’s
preliminary 90-day report that the pipeline segments had been incorrectly identified as fiberglass
piping but upon review of its records, were actually coated steel. Respondent asserted that it had
both corrected the information in its records and scheduled the installation of a magnesium anode
for cathodic protection.
Enbridge, responding for Express Holdings, stated in its Response that it did not contest this
allegation in the Notice.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR
§ 195.563(a) by failing to ensure its buried steel pipelines that were constructed after March 31,
1970 had cathodic protection.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.573(a)(1), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine
whether cathodic protection required by the subpart complies with
1 See 49 CFR § 195.401(c)(1).



4
§ 195.571:
(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those
intervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or
ineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3
calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct tests
on protected pipelines to determine whether the cathodic protection complies with § 195.571 at
least once each calendar year, at intervals that do not exceed 15 months. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that a review of the operator’s records revealed that Express Holdings failed to conduct
the required testing at the proper interval for 382 separate instances during the calendar years of
2021 and 2022. In addition to those instances, the Notice also alleged that there were three test
points on Line 40 that could not be physically located and therefore were skipped by the
surveyor during the calendar year of 2020, and that breakout Tank 203 24-inch inlet pipe was not
tested during the calendar year of 2021.
Enbridge, responding for Express Holdings, stated in its Response that it did not contest this
allegation in the Notice.
Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR
§ 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct tests on its protected pipelines to determine if the cathodic
protection complies with § 195.571 at least once every calendar year at intervals not to exceed 15
months.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.573(e), which states:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a) …
(e) Corrective action. You must correct any identified deficiency in
corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). However, if the deficiency
involves a pipeline in an integrity management program under § 195.452,
you much correct the deficiency as required by § 195.452(h).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.573(e) by failing to correct identified
deficiencies in its corrosion control as required by § 195.401(b). Section 195.401(b)(1) states in
part that “[w]henever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely affect the safe
operation of its pipeline, it must correct the condition in a reasonable time.” Further, Express
Holdings, following Enbridge’s procedures, required that once discovered, a corrosion control
deficiency must be corrected within 15 months from the date of discovery. The Notice alleged
that in seven separate instances, a review of the operator’s records revealed that Express
Holdings had failed to correct identified corrosion control deficiencies within 15 months from
the dates of their discovery.
Enbridge, responding for Express Holdings, stated in its Response that it did not contest this
allegation in the Notice.



5
Accordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR
§ 195.573(e) by failing to timely correct identified deficiencies in its corrosion control.
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 exceeding
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, with a maximum administrative civil
penalty exceeding $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.2
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 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; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure 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.
The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $114,600 for the violations cited above. Effective
May 20, 2025 PHMSA revised its proposed civil penalty calculation policy and now uses the
version of the Civil Penalty Worksheet which was in effect on the date the alleged violation
ended or the last date of the onsite inspection, whichever is earlier. This change did not affect the
proposed civil penalty for any of the Items in the Notice.3
In its Response, Enbridge neither contested the underlying violations of Items 1, 4, and 5 nor
presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction of the civil penalties for these Items.
Accordingly, Enbridge waived its opportunity to contest the proposed penalty amounts.
In a Supplemental Response submitted over five months later, Enbridge argued the proposed
penalty should be reduced or waived on the basis that PHMSA had not provided a detailed
methodology of how the penalty was calculated. Enbridge further contended that based on its
safety culture and ongoing efforts to comply with the pipeline safety regulations, the civil
penalty should be reduced or eliminated. Having already waived its opportunity to contest the
penalty, I find the Supplemental Response was untimely, per 49 CFR § 190.208. Further, as
discussed in more detail below, after reviewing the record, I find the proposed penalty amount is
supported by the above-referenced assessment criteria and evidence in the record.4
2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.
3 Letter from Acting Director, Central Region, to Express Holdings (U.S.A.), LLC dated June 18, 2025.
4 The Notice included the legal citations that establish the assessment criteria used by PHMSA to calculate the
penalty. PHMSA also makes available in all proceedings a detailed calculation worksheet, which may be requested



6
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $37,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR
§ 195.264(b)(1)(i), for failing to satisfy the requirements of NFPA-30, section 22.11.2 regarding
the impoundment area around breakout tanks.
With respect to the gravity of the violation, the Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation
Report) in Part E6 indicated that pipeline safety was minimally affected. Therefore, the penalty
calculation appropriately reflected that the violation did not constitute a significant safety
concern. As indicated in the Violation Report Part E5, PHMSA discovered the violation, it was
not self-disclosed by Enbridge. In Part E7, Respondent did not receive a possible culpability
credit because Enbridge did not take actions to correct the violation before PHMSA learned of
the violation.
5 For these reasons, I find the proposed civil penalty is supported by the facts in the
record. Having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a
civil penalty of $37,200 for violation of 49 CFR § 195.264(b)(1)(i).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $41,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR
§ 195.573(a)(1), for failing to conduct tests to monitor the adequacy of the cathodic protection on
its protected pipelines at least once each calendar year at intervals that did not exceed 15 months.
With respect to the gravity of the violation, the Violation Report in Part E6 indicated that
pipeline safety was minimally affected; therefore, the penalty calculation appropriately reflected
that the violation did not constitute a significant safety concern. As indicated in the Violation
Report Part E5, PHMSA discovered the violation, it was not self-disclosed by Enbridge. In Part
E7, the Violation Report correctly noted Enbridge did not take actions to correct the violation
before PHMSA learned of the violation. For these reasons, I find the proposed civil penalty is
supported by the facts in the record. Having reviewed the record and considered the assessment
criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $41,700 for violation of 49 CFR § 195.573(a)(1).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $35,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR
§ 195.573(e), for failing to timely correct identified deficiencies in corrosion control as required
by § 195.401(b).
With respect to the gravity of the violation, the Violation Report in Part E6 indicated that
pipeline safety was minimally affected; therefore, the penalty calculation appropriately reflected
that the violation did not constitute a significant safety concern. As indicated in Part E5, PHMSA
discovered the violation, it was not self-disclosed by Enbridge. Part E7 correctly noted Enbridge
did not take actions to correct the violation before PHMSA learned of the violation. For these
reasons, I find the proposed civil penalty is supported by the facts in the record. Having reviewed
the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $35,700
by a respondent along with other records as provided by 49 U.S.C. § 60117(b)(1)(C) and 49 CFR § 190.209.
Enbridge never requested these materials. Notwithstanding, Central Region produced the case file, including the
penalty calculation worksheet, after receiving the Supplemental Response.
5 See In the Matter of Oasis Midstream Partners LP, a General Partner of Oasis Petroleum Inc., Final Order 3-
2019-5020, 2020 WL 6870720 at 7 (August 19, 2020) (“While Oasis is to be commended for improving its internal
processes to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations, such post-inspection activities do not warrant
the withdrawal of, or a reduction in, a proposed civil penalty.”)



7
for violation of 49 CFR § 195.573(e).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $114,600.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.
Federal regulations (49 CFR § 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 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 CFR § 901.9 and 49 CFR § 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, and 3 in the Notice for
violations of 49 CFR §§ 195.264(b)(1)(i), 195.505(a), and 195.563(a), respectively. Under 49
U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who
owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards
established under chapter 601. As discussed above, Item 2 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the
compliance terms proposed in the Notice for that Item are not included in this Order.
With regard to the violation of § 195.563(a) (Item 3), Respondent requested the compliance
deadline be modified to allow until June 30, 2025 for it to complete the proposed compliance
terms for this Item, contending that since receipt of the Notice dated October 25, 2024, Enbridge
had been actively engaged in testing and planning the remediation of the cited deficiencies in its
cathodic protection system. The Director agreed with Respondent’s request and granted the
extension in a letter dated February 6, 2025. Since the June 30, 2025 extension is now passed, it
is not necessary to modify the terms of the Compliance Order.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered
to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable
to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.264(b)(1)(i) (Item 1), Respondent must:
(i) Subdivide the tanks’ impoundment areas by constructing either drainage
channels or intermediate dikes, in accordance with NFPA 30, at the Buffalo,
Montana, facility within 12 months of receipt of the Final Order.



8
(ii) Submit to the Director evidence of remediated locations to
demonstrate compliance with NFPA 30 within 12 months of the receipt of the
Final Order.
(iii) Send an update to the Director every 90 days following receipt the Final
Order regarding the progress of the impoundment construction.
2. With respect to the violation of § 195.563(a) (Item 3), Respondent must:
(i) Design and install cathodic protection at the steel pipelines that connect to the
fiberglass sump tanks at the Faulkners, Lost Cabin, Warren, Fish Creek, and
Banjo and pump stations no later than 30 days after receipt of this Final Order.
(ii) Submit to the Director evidence of remediated locations to demonstrate
compliance with § 195.563(a) no later than 30 days after receipt of this Final
Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. 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.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
exceeding $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for
each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for
appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
Under 49 CFR § 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. The written petition must be received no later than
20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a
statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The filing of a
petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the
order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon
request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in
accordance with 49 CFR § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Linda Daugherty Date Issued
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 28800