{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420051003","title":"NORTENO PIPELINE COMPANY — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-02-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.459, 192.481, 192.605(c), 192.609, 192.615, 192.705.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420051003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420051003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving NORTENO PIPELINE COMPANY. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.459,  192.481,  192.605(c),  192.609,  192.615,  192.705. The case was opened on 2005-02-14 and is reported as closed as of 2006-06-29. Proposed civil penalty: $30,000. Assessed civil penalty: $27,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420051003_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_06212006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06212006.pdf\n\n420051003_decision on petition for reconsideration_06212006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_decision%20on%20petition%20for%20reconsideration_06212006_text.pdf\n\n420051003_Final Order_02162006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_Final%20Order_02162006.pdf\n\n420051003_final order_02162006_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_final%20order_02162006_text.pdf\n\n420051003_Petition for Reconsideration_03062006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/420051003_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_03062006.pdf\n\nCPF NO  4-2005-1003 ONEOK INC NORTENO PIPELINE CO .pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/CPF%20NO%20%204-2005-1003%20ONEOK%20INC%20NORTENO%20PIPELINE%20CO%20.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_4-2005-1003.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420051003/CPF_NO_4-2005-1003.pdf\n\n420051003_final order_02162006_text.pdf\n\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n400 Seventh Street, S. W\nWashington, D. C. 20590\nFE8 l 6:;„;\nMr. John W. Gibson\nPresident\nOneok, Inc. /Norteno Pipeline Company\nOneok Plaza\n100 W 5tll St\nTulsa, OK 74103\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-1003\nDear Mr. Gibson:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrato\nthe above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assess\n$27, 500. It further finds that you have completed the actions specifi\nto comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalt\nenforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order c\n49 C. F. R. g 190. 5.\nfor Pipeline Safety in\ns a civil penalty of\nd in the Notice required\nis paid, this\nnstitutes service under\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Re istry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nN\nDMINISTRATION\nIn the Matter of\n)\nNorteno Pipeline Company, )\na wholly-owned subsidiary of Oneok, Inc.\n, )\nRespondent\nCPF No. 4-2 05-1003\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 8 — 10, 2003, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60117, a representativ\nSafety (OPS), Research and Special Programs Administration (RS\nsafety inspection of Respondent's facilities and records pertaining\nsystems in El Paso, Texas. ' As a result of the inspection, the Directo\nissued to Respondent, by letter dated February 14, 2005, a Noti\nProposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In\n$ 190. 207, the Notice alleged Respondent committed violations of\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $30, 000 for the alleged viol\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the al\nof the Office of Pipehne\nA), conducted a pipeline\no the Del Norte pipeline\nSouthwest Region, OPS,\ne of Probable Violation,\nceordanee with 49 C F. R.\n49 C. F. R. Part 192 and\ntions. The Notice also\neged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Res\nNotice by letter dated March 31, 200S. Respondent contested seve\nprovided information concerning corrective action it had taken. Res\nhearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.\nondent responded to the\nal of the allegations and\nondent did not request a\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1B in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 491\n(c) by failing to maintain\na record of each test, survey, or inspection required by 49 C. F. R. g 192.\n81 in sufficient detail to\ndemonstrate the adequacy of atmospheric corrosion control measures.\nhe Notice alleged that at\nthe time of the inspection, Respondent was unable to provide docum\nntation that Respondent\nexamined exposed pipe for evidence of atmospheric corrosion\ni The Norman Y Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement\n118 Stat 2423 (2004), created the Pipehne and Hazardous Matenals Safety Ad\ntransferred the authority of RSPA exercised under chapter 601 of title 49,\nAdmimstrator of PHMSA See also 70 Fed Reg. 8299, 8301-8302 (2005)\nAct, Pub. L. No 108-426,\ninistration (PHMSA) and\nnited States Code, to the\n\n\n\nSection 192. 491(c) requires Respondent to maintain a record of ea\nrequired by subpart I, including inspections required by $ 192.\ndemonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a\nexist. Section 192. 481(a) requires Respondent to inspect each on\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmosp\nevery 3 calendar years, with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nstated that the Del Norte pipeline system does not have portions of\nthe atmosphere. Respondent also submitted a sample of a pipeline s\nspecific location on the pipeline system (Canutillo WGI) to show th t\nDel Norte pipeline system since 2001 included inspections for atmos\ntest, survey, or inspection\n81, in sufficient detail to\norrosive condition does not\nhore pipeline or portion of\neric corrosion at least once\nn its response, Respondent\nipeline that are exposed to\nfety inspection report for a\nannual inspections for the\nheric corrosion.\nAlthough Respondent contended that the pipeline system does not\npipeline, Respondent submitted a letter to OPS dated August 20, 20\nexposed portions of pipeline, such as above-ground regulator stati\n$$ 192. 481(a) and 192. 491(c), Respondent must inspect each expo\nevery 3 years ior evidence of atmospheric corrosion and maintain a\nfor at least 5 years. The documentation submitted by Respondent sho\nchecked the paint conditions at the Canutillo WGI location betw\ndocumentation does not demonstrate compliance with respect to th\nsystem at the time of the OPS inspection. Accordingly, I find\n$$ 192. 491(c) and 192. 481 as alleged in the Notice.\nhave portions of exposed\n3 that includes pictures of\n4\nns. Accordingly, under\ned locations at least once\necord of those inspections\ns only that it had visually\nen 2001 and 2005. The\nentire Del Norte pipeline\nthat Respondent violated\nItem 2B in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 1\ndocumentation to show that a class location study had been perfor\npopulation density indicated a change in class location. The Notice 81\ninspection, Respondent was unable to provide documentation to s\nperformed a class location study to determine, among other things, th\nthe Del Norte pipeline system. The Notice noted that Respondent's 2\nsix miles of pipeline in Class 2; but the OPS inspector observed that t\nsix miles of Class 3 and only one mile of either Class 1 or Class 2.\n2. 609 by failing to have\ned when an increase in\nged that at the time of the\now that Respondent had\npresent class location of\n02 annual report showed\ne system was more likely\nSection 192. 609 requires Respondent to perform a class location stud\nwhenever an increase in\npopulation density indicates a change in class location for a segment\nf the pipeline system. In\nits response, Respondent submitted documentation that the Del\norte pipeline system is\napproximately five miles of Class 3, approximately one-half mile of C\nass 2, and approximately\none mile of Class 1. The documentation is dated March 1, 2005,\nand therefore, does not\ndemonstrate coinpliance at the time of the OPS inspection on July 8—\n0, 2003. Accordingly, I\nfind that Respondent violated $ 192. 609 as alleged in the Notice.\nItem 2C in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 19\ndocumentation to show that liaison had been established with appropri\npublic officials. The Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection,\nof contact with appropriate officials in New Mexico\n. 615 by failing to have\nte fire, police, and other\nespondent had no record\nResponse, p 2\nResponse Attachment, Tab 1\nOPS Gas Pipehne Safety Violation Report, Exhibit 1\n\n\n\nSection 192. 615 requires Respondent to establish and maintain h i\nson with appropriate fire,\npolice, and other public officials to: learn the responsibility and res\nurces of each government\norganization that may respond to a gas pipeline emergency; acq\naint the officials with the\noperator's ability in responding to a gas pipeline emergency; identi\nthe types of gas pipeline\nemergencies of which the operator notifies the officials; and plan ho\nthe operator and officials\ncan engage in mutual assistance to minimize hazards to life or propert .\nIn its response, Respondent submitted documentation of training a\nconducted with local Texas and New Mexico public safety officials\ntook place on June 17, 2004, approximately one year after the OPS i\nnot demonstrated that it established liaison prior to the OPS inspect\nfind that Respondent violated $ 192. 615 as alleged in the Notice.\nItem 2D in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 1\ndocumentation to show that the pipeline system had been patrolled in\nThe Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection, Respondent di\npatrolling history for the Del Norte ¹1 pipeline.\nSection 192. 709 requires Respondent to maintain a record of each patr\ntest required by subparts L and M, including patrols required under $ 1\nor until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whi\n192. 705 requires Respondent to perform patrols to observe surface co\nthe transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction\naffecting safety and operation. Patrols are to be performed at least\npursuant to g 192. 705(b).\nIn its response, Respondent submitted patrol records for the Del N\nthrough 2004. Respondent stated that these documents existed at the\nwere maintained within other company records. Respondent explai\npatrol records separate from other company records in the future.\ndocumentation demonstrates that the Del Norte ¹1 pipeline was pat\n2004, Respondent did not submitted records of patrols prior to 20\n) 192. 709, Respondent must be able to produce records of patrols for\nthe OPS inspection (July 1998). Accordingly, I find that Respondent\n192. 705 by failing to maintain for at least 5 years a record of each pa\nNorte ¹1 pipehne in 1998 through 2001.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nd liaison that Respondent\nThe training and liaison\nspection. Respondent has\non on July 8 — 10, 2003. I\n2. 709 by failing to have\nccordance with g 192. 705.\nnot have a record of the\n1, survey, inspection, and\n2. 705, for at least 5 years\nhever is longer. Section\nditions on and adjacent to\nactivity, and other factors\nually, if not more often\nrte ¹1 pipeline for 2002\nme of the inspection, but\ned that it will maintain\nAlthough Respondent*s\noiled in 2002, 2003 and\n2. In accordance with\nt least five years prior to\nviolated $g 192. 709 and\nol conducted on the Del\nUnder 49 U. S. C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty no\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000\nviolations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $30, 000 for the\nto exceed $100, 000 per\nfor any related series of\niolations.\n49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determinin\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and\nthe amount of the civil\navity of the violation,\n\n\n\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior o\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achie\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters\nfenses, Respondent's abihty\ne compliance, the effect on\ns justice may require.\nItem 1B in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for violat\nng 49 C. F. R. g$ 192. 491(c)\nand 192. 481. Failure to inspect exposed pipelines for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion may\nlead to corrosive conditions on the pipeline and pipeline failure.\nKeeping adequate records\nallows Respondent to review historical conditions on the pipeli\ne and past practices and\nprocedures. Respondent has not submitted information that would\nwarrant a reduction in the\ncivil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accor\ningly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\ncivil penalty of $5, 000 for\nthe violation of $$ 192 491(c) and 192 481.\nItem 2B in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10, 000 for viol\nClass 3 and Class 4 areas are more densely populated and includ\nmu!tistoried buildings, places of public assembly and playgrounds\nmany pipeline safety regulations are more stringent in those areas.\nlocation study when an increase in population density indicates\njeopardizes public safety. Subsequent to the OPS inspection, Respo\nwith respect to this violation. That action alone, however, does no\npenalty for the violation because Respondent is under an affirmative d\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the ass\nRespondent a civil penalty of $10, 000 for the violation.\nting 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 609\nplaces where residences,\nay be prevalent. As such,\nFailure to perform a class\nchange in class location\ndent achieved compliance\njustify reducing the civil\nty to achieve compliance.\nssment criteria, I assess\nItem 2C in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for viola\nSubsequent to the OPS inspection, Respondent achieved compli\nviolation. That action alone, however, does not justify reducing the ci\nbecause Respondent is under an affirmative duty to achieve complia\nsubmitted information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penal\nNotice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the re\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5, 000 for th\ning 49 C. F. R. $ 192. 615.\nce with respect to this\nil penalty for the violation\nce. Respondent has not\ny amount proposed in the\nord and considered the\nviolation.\nItem 2D in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10, 000 for violati\nand 192. 705 by failing to maintain for at least 5 years a record of eac\nDel Norte ¹I pipeline. Failure to perform right-of-way patrols on a re\nhazardous or potentially unsafe condition going undetected, such\nconstruction activity in the vicinity of the pipeline. In its response, Re\nrecords for the Del Norte ¹1 pipeline for the time period from 2002\nRespondent could not demonstrate full compliance with $$ 192. 709 a\nability to demonstrate compliance with several years in question\nreduction to the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the re\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $7, 50\ng 49 C. F. R. $$ 192. 709\npatrol conducted on the\nular basis may result in a\nas a pipeline leak or\npondent submitted patrol\nrough 2004. Although\nd 192. 705, Respondent's\njustifies a proportional\nord and considered the\nfor the violation.\nHaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I\ncivil penalty of $27, 500. I find Respondent has the ability to pay this\naffecting its ability to continue in business.\nsess Respondent a total\nenalty without adversely\n\n\n\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of serv ce. Federal regulations (49\nC. F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire tr sfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of t e U. S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerni g wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Av ation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, 0 73125; (405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the $27, 500 civil penalty will result in accrual of inter st at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U. S. C. $ 3717, 31 C. F. R. $ 901. 9 and 49 C. F. R. $ 89. 23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) pe annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, fail re to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for app opriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPI IAiYCK GRDKR\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2B, 2C\n) 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas o\nand 2D. Under 49 U. S. C.\npipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety st\nwho owns or operates a\nChapter 601. The Director, Southwest Region, OPS, has reviewed the\ndards established under\nRespondent and has indicated that the corrective action has achieved\ncorrective action taken by\nthose violations. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved, it\nompliance with respect to\nthe compliance terms in this order.\ns not necessary to include\nWARNING ITEMS\nThe Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Ite\nexposed pipe, and Item 2A, failing to keep records of abnormal operati\nconsidered warning items. Respondent is warned that if it does not t\ncorrect these items, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequ\nviolation.\n1A, faihng to examine\nns. Therefore, these are\ne appropriate action to\nnt inspection reveals a\nUnder 49 C. F. R. g 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petiti\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Res\nn for Reconsideration of\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). T\nondent's receipt of this\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. Howev\ne filing of the petition\nr if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final admi\nistrative action and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditio\neffe '\nof this Final Order are\ne on receipt.\nSt ce\nAss\nGer ard\nate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nFEH 16 i\", '\"\nDate Issued\n\n420051003_decision on petition for reconsideration_06212006_text.pdf\n\nU. S. Department\nof Transportation\nPlpellne and\nHaxardous Materials Safety\nAdmlnhtratlon\nJUN 21 i00o\nMr. John W. Gibsorr\nPresident\nOneolc, Inc. /Norteno Pipeline Company\nOneok Plaza\n100 W 5 Street\nTulsa, OK 74103\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-1003\nDear Mr. Gibson:\nEnclosed is a decision on the petition for reconsideration filed in\ncase. The Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety has denied the\nthe payment of the remaining $27, 500 civil penalty is due immediatel\nadvised that appropriate corrective action regarding the Warning Item\nOrder must also be taken if such action has not already been complet\ndecision constitutes service under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Regis\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nCc: Sue Griffin, Assoc. General Counsel and Asst. Corporate Secre\nCERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RK UESTED\n400 Seventh Street, S. N.\nWashtngton, O. C. 20590\nabove-referenced\ntition. Accordingly,\n. In addition, please be\nspecified in the Final\n. Your receipt of this\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY A\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nINISTRATION\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nNorteno Pipeline Company, )\na wholly-owned subsidiary of Oneok, Inc. )\n)\nPetitioner. )\nCPF N J 4-2005-1003\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDE ION\nOn February 16, 2006, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60112, the Associat\nPipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order in th\nPetitioner had violated the pipeline safety regulations and assessing\namount of $27, 500. The Final Order warned Petitioner to take appr\naction regarding some of Petitioner's practices for examining expos\ndata\nadministrator for\nj case finding\ncivil penalty in the\nriate corrective\npipe and recording\nOn March 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration of\npetition, Petitioner sought reconsideration of one finding of violatio\nidentified as \"Item 1B\" for the failure to maintain a record of each te\ninspection required by 49 C. F. R. f 192. 481 in sufficient detail to de\nadequacy of atmospheric corrosion control measures.\ne Final Order. In its\nin the Final Order,\nt, survey, or\nonstrate the\nPetitioner argues: \"Norteno has no exposed 'pipeline or portion of\nmeters/regulators which are annually inspected for atmospheric corr\nresponse to Item 1B, Petitioner submitted copies of its \"Meter/Regul\nSafety Inspection Reports\" for five meter/regulator stations for the t\n1998 to 2005. Petitioner states there are only five meter/regulator s\npipeline system, and therefore, those records are the only records req\ndemonstrate the adequacy of its atmospheric corrosion control meas\npeline', only\nsion. \" In\ntor Station\ne period from\ntions in the\nired to\nes.\nSection 192. 481 requires each operator to inspect \"each pipeline or P rtion of\npipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmosphe \"c corrosion. \"\nA pipeline is \"all parts of those physical facilities through which gas oves in\ntransportation, including pipe, valves, and other appurtenance attache to pipe,\ncompressor units, metering stations, regulator stations, delivery statio s, holders,\n\n\n\nand fabricated assemblies. \"' Any pipeline that is above ground is \"\natmosphere. \" All above-ground pipe must be inspected, including\nintentionally above ground — not only pipe that has become expose\ncauses. Therefore, Petitioner is required to inspect for atmospheric\nparts of those physical facilities through which gas moves in transp\nabove ground.\nposed to the\ni ethatis\nough natural\nrrosion on all\niItation and are\nSection 192. 491 requires each operator to maintain records of the in\nperformed under section 192. 481. Petitioner states it has only five\nstations and submitted records demonstrating inspection for atmosp\nof those five regulators/meters. Petitioner indicates that those recor\nrecords required to show it performed the inspections required unde\n192. 481.\nactions\npter/regulator\nprie corrosion\nare the only\nection\nPetitioner's statement that it has no exposed \"'pipeline or portion of\nmeters/regulators\" is incorrect. Petitioner's pipeline clearly has mor\nlocations where pipe is above ground. Petitioner's \"System Protecti\nExposed Mains Patrol Checklist\" identifies seventeen pages of locat\nis exposed. Although some document indicates the pipe condition a\nlocations, it does not indicate the condition at others. Petitioner also\nphotos of above ground pipe at locations other than the five regulato\n'ipeline', only\ntliail five\np Department\n$ns where pipe\nIncome\nubmitted\nmeter sites.\nSection 192. 481 requires Petitioner to inspect all of the locations wi\nfor atmospheric corrosion, not just the regulator/meter sites. Petition\nrecords of atmospheric corrosion inspections of five regulators/meter\nexposed pipeline subject to section 192. 481. Petitioner did not prod\nrecords for atmospheric corrosion inspections of all pipeline located\nOf particular note, none of the documents produced by Petitioner rec\nof the Del Norte ¹1 line.\nexposed pipe\nr produced\nwhich are\n,\ne complete\nbove ground.\nrd inspections\nI\nThe records Petitioner submitted do not demonstrate that it maintaine complete\nrecords of its atmospheric corrosion inspections at all locations wher it has\nexposed pipeline.\nRelief Denied\nI have considered Petitioner's request for reconsideration and the add\nit submitted with its request. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that\ncomplete records of atmospheric corrosion inspections in sufficient d\ndemonstrate the adequacy of atmospheric corrosion control measures\nall terms of the Final Order remain in effect, including assessment of\npenalty in the amount of $27, 500.\ntional records\nit maintained\ntail to„\nTherefore,\ne civil\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 da s of service. Federal\nregulations (49 C. F. R. g 89, 21 fb)(3N require this payment be made b wire trans fer.\n' 49 C F, R. g 192. 3.\n\n\n\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to e account of\nthe U. S. Treasury. Questions concerning wire transfers should be d'r cted to:\nFinancial Operations Division (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Admin' tration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, 0 73125;\n(405) 954-4719.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U. S. C. g 3717, 31 C. F. R. g 901. 9 and 49 . F. R. $ 89. 23.\nPursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six perce (6%) per\nannum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of se ice. Failure\nto pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Att gey General\nfor appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nThis decision on reconsideration is the final administrative action in is\nproceeding. I\nI\njJUN 21 204)\nate Issued\ne\ny Gerard\ns c\niate Administrator\nr Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":25044}