{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420055016","title":"MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-04-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.505(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420055016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195,  195.505(b). The case was opened on 2005-04-18 and is reported as closed as of 2009-03-04. Proposed civil penalty: $183,000. Assessed civil penalty: $120,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420055016_Decision on Petition_02132009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055016/420055016_Decision%20on%20Petition_02132009.pdf\n\n420055016_Decision on Petition_02132009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055016/420055016_Decision%20on%20Petition_02132009_text.pdf\n\n420055016_Final Order_09062006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055016/420055016_Final%20Order_09062006.pdf\n\n420055016_Petition for Reconsideration_09282006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055016/420055016_Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09282006.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_4-2005-5016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055016/CPF_NO_4-2005-5016.pdf\n\n420055016_Decision on Petition_02132009_text.pdf\n\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMr. Paul E. Pratt, Esq.\nMagellan Midstream Partners, L.P.\nOne Williams Center\nSuite 2800\nTulsa, OK 74172\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-5016\nDear Mr. Pratt:\nEnclosed is the decision on the petition for reconsideration filed by Magellan Midstream\nPartners, L.P., in the above-referenced case. For the reasons specified therein, the petition is\ngranted, in part. Payment of the $120,500 civil penalty is due within 20 days of service. The\nfindings of the Final Order remain unaltered and stand as stated therein. When the civil\npenalty is paid, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of this decision\nconstitutes service under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾)\nIn the Matter of )\nMagellan Midstream Partners, L.P. ) CPF No. 4-2005-5016\nPetitioner. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nOn September 6, 2006, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60112, the Associate Administrator for\nPipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order in this case finding\nPetitioner had violated the pipeline safety regulations and assessing a civil penalty in the\namount of $183,500.\nPHMSA’s records are unclear as to the date Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration\nof the Final Order. Therefore, I am treating the petition as timely filed. In its petition,\nPetitioner sought reconsideration of the $183,500 civil penalty assessed for two pipeline\nsafety violations: (1) failing to provide records demonstrating that three hundred and\nfifteen (315) of its employees were properly qualified to perform the covered task under\nRespondent’s operator qualification (OQ) plan; and (2) failing to ensure through\nevaluations that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified.\nPetitioner seeks a reduction in the civil penalty assessed on the grounds that\nPHMSA erred by stating in the Order that Petitioner “failed to justify mitigation or\nelimination of the civil penalty.” Specifically, Petitioner argues PHMSA failed to\nconsider three mitigating factors Petitioner had presented prior to the issuance of\nthe Final Order – factors PHMSA was required to consider. Petitioner claims the\npenalty should have been mitigated based on the information submitted in its Post-\nHearing brief, based on its expeditious response in correcting the violations, and\nbased on “other matters as justice may require.”\nFirst, Petitioner argues that PHMSA ignored the mitigating information Petitioner\nhad provided in its post-hearing brief when PHMSA considered the nature,\ncircumstances and gravity of the violation. The Final Order indicates that the\nrecords provided in its post-hearing brief did not remove the finding of violation;\nhowever, the Final Order did not adequately address the issue of mitigation of the\npenalty based on the information submitted in its Post-Hearing brief. In the Final\n\n\n\nOrder, I found Petitioner had not adequately reviewed the qualification records\ntransferred from Williams since it did not have them readily accessible during the\ninspection. After reviewing the case file, including Petitioner’s documentation\nsubmitted with its post-hearing brief, I find that the documentation does warrant\nsome mitigation of the penalty.\nPetitioner’s second argument is that its expeditious response in correcting the\nviolations demonstrates a good faith attempt to achieve compliance, thereby\nwarranting a reduction in the penalty. The “good faith” factor represents an\noperator’s good faith in attempting to comply with the regulations prior to an\ninspection. The factor is designed to give an operator credit for its attempt to\ncomply, even if it ultimately was not in compliance. After reviewing the\ndocumentation submitted with its post-hearing brief, Petitioner appears to have\nmade good faith efforts to comply with the regulations and some mitigation is\nwarranted.\nPetitioner’s third basis for a reduction is the criterion “such other matters as justice\nmay require.” Petitioner argues that PHMSA’s failure to mitigate the penalty will\nhave a chilling effect on other companies who are considering what action to take\nfollowing an inspection. Although Petitioner made efforts to bring itself into\ncompliance in a timely manner following the inspection, it did not take any actions\nthat were not already required under the regulations. Petitioner should not derive\nany benefit for its failure to comply or for its prompt response to bring a violation\ninto compliance following an inspection.\nRelief Granted, in part\nI have considered Petitioner’s request for reconsideration. This Decision does not\nalter the findings of violation as described in the Final Order. Although the\nadditional information submitted with Petitioner’s post-hearing Brief warrants\nmitigation of the civil penalty, it does not establish that the violations found in the\nFinal Order did not occur. The civil penalty of $183,500 assessed in the Final\nOrder should have been reduced to reflect all of the information submitted by\nPetitioner during the course of the enforcement proceeding. Accordingly, I hereby\nassess a civil penalty of $120,500.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made\nwithin 20 days of service.\nFederal\nregulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer,\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of\nthe U.S. Treasury. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to:\nFinancial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125;\n(405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23.\n2\n\n\n\nPursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per\nannum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Failure\nto pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General\nfor appropriate action in a United States District Court.\nThis decision on reconsideration is the final administrative action in this\nproceeding.\n____________________________ _____________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n3\n\n420055016_Final Order_09062006.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nof Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nRichard A. Olson\nVice President, Transportation Operations\nMagellan Midstream Partners, L.P.\nOne Williams Center\nP.O. Box 22 186\nTulsa, OK 74 12 1\nRE: CPF NO. 4-2005-50 16\nDear Mr. Olson:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $1 83,500 and\nspecifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty is paid and the terms of the compliance\norder completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. 190.5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\ncc: Mr. Paul E. Pratt, Counsel for Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P.\nMr. Rod Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nEnclosure\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of 1\nMagellan Midstream Partners, L.P., ) CPF No. No. 4-2005-5016\nRespondent. 1\nFINAL ORDER\nOn April 28-29,2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 9 601 17, a team of representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southwest Region, and the Minnesota Office\nof Pipeline Safety conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's Operator\nQualification records and procedures in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As a result of the inspection, the Director,\nSouthwest Region, issued to Respondent, by letter dated April 18, 2005, a Notice of Probable\nViolation, Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49\nC.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. §195.505(b)\nand proposed assessing a total civil penalty of $1 83,500 for the alleged violation. The Notice also\nproposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated May 19,2005 (Response). Respondent contested\npart A of the allegation, offered information to explain the allegation and requested that the proposed\ncivil penalty be eliminated. Respondent also requested a hearing.\nThe hearing was held in Houston, Texas via teleconference on September 2 1,2005. Respondent was\ngranted permission to submit a post-hearing Response. In support of its position, Respondent\nsubmitted a Post-Hearing Brief dated October 28, 2005. On December 29, 2005, Respondent.\nsubmitted records of all employees that had been re-evaluated pursuant to the proposed compliance\norder.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nUncontested\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violation of 49 C.F.R. $195 in Item 1B of the Notice.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as more filly described in the\nNotice:\n49 C.F.R. §192.505(b) - failure to ensure through evaluations that individuals\nperforming covered tasks are qualified.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n\n\n\nItem 1A of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.505(b), when Respondent\ndid not provide records to demonstrate that three hundred and fifteen (315) of its employees,\ntransferred from Williams to Respondent, were qualified to perform the covered task under\nRespondent's operator qualification (OQ) program. The records contained no evidence that\nRespondent validated Williams' evaluations or that Respondent reviewed corresponding records to\nensure that each of the employees in question successfully performed each covered task referred to\nas \"qualified\" to perform. The records were void of any documentation that the employees in\nquestion had performed each covered task on a regular basis prior to the effective date of the rule.\nThe records were also void of any documentation that the tasks were performed without error and\nthat the performance of any covered task did not result in an accident. Therefore, the OPS inspection\nteam determined that the evaluation method actually used by Respondent was an un-documented\nmisuse of the work performance history evaluation method, which amounted to \"grandfathering\"\nemployees.\nIn response to Item 1 A, Respondent advised that it requested and received a documented work\nperformance history review worksheet for each Williams employee transferred to Respondent.\nRespondent further advised that the Williams organization that was operating the assets the hour\nbefore the transition to Respondent was the same organization (supervisors and employees) that were\noperating the organization an hour after the transition. Respondent stated that Williams performed\na DOT-Operator Qualification Work History Performance Review Field Worksheet on its applicable\nemployees. Respondent further stated that Williams transferred the Qualification Worksheets\nassociated with each applicable employee to Respondent. In support of its position, Respondent\nsubmitted records that consisted of a six page document entitled \"Work History Performance Review\nField Worksheet\" and a sample \"Qualification Worksheet.\"\nRespondent contended that work history performance review (WHR) is specifically recognized as\nan acceptable evaluation methodology for transitional qualifications. Transitional qualification\nunder the Final Rule' is defined as \"qualification completed by October 28,2002, of individuals who\nhave been performing a covered task on a regular basis prior to the effective date of the rule.\"\nRespondent further argued that the Final Rule specifically states, \"Prior to the three year compliance\ndate operators may use work performance history review as the sole method for evaluation when\nqualifying individuals.\"\nOPS argued that, during the compliance inspection, Respondent failed to provide records to\ndemonstrate that three hundred and fifteen (3 15) of its employees, transferred from Williams to\nRespondent were properly qualified to perform the covered task or that they were properly qualified\nto perform the covered task under the Respondent's OQ program. The issue is whether Respondent\nprovided adequate OQ records to demonstrated compliance with 49 C.F.R. 5 195.505(b) and that it\nvalidated the evaluations.\n'~inal Rule, Pipeline Safety: Qualification of Pipeline Personnel, 64 FR 46853, August 27, 1999.\n\n\n\nBased upon the \"undocumented\" evaluation or lack of validation, OPS determined that no effort had\nbeen made by Respondent to ensure that the employees in question had performed each covered task\non a regular basis prior to the rule's effective date, that the tasks were performed without error, and\nthat the performance of any covered task did not result in an accident. OPS further argued that\nRespondent did not provide any additional information to support the evaluation or qualification of\nthe employees. OPS concluded, based upon the lack of records and documentation, that the\nemployees were \"grandfathered,\" with their Williams qualifications and no validation of their\nevaluations.\nRespondent contended that it was in compliance with 49 C.F.R. §195.505(b) and did have\ndocumentation that employees who were transitionally qualified to perform specific covered tasks\nhad 1) performed those tasks on a regular basis prior to the effective date of the rule, 2) performed\nthe tasks without error. Respondent further contended that the inspection team did not ask\nRespondent to provide this documentation during the April 2004 PHMSA audit.\nEven considering Respondent's argument in a light most favorable to Respondent, it is Respondent\nis required to demonstrate compliance with an applicable regulation during a PHMSA inspection.\nThe violation report clearly indicates that the PHMSA inspection team inquired about compliance\nwith 49 C.F.R. §195.505(b) and were provided the \"Williams Appendix C -Work History\nPerformance Review\" form and the \"Magellan OJT Checklist - Performance Requirements\" by one\nemployee of the Respondent and was witnessed by another. Respondent acknowledged that an\ninspector discussed its deficiencies during the exit interview. Therefore, Respondent was well aware\nof the lack of sufficient documentation and the requirement to provide relevant OQ records to\ndemonstrate compliance before the conclusion ofthe inspection. Respondent had ample opportunity,\nprior to the inspection, during the inspection, and during the exit interview, to provide any and all\nrecords to demonstrate compliance.\nFurthermore, an operator is required to maintain records in accordance with the requirements of 49\nCFR 195, subpart G, for all individuals performing covered tasks. Operators are required to\nmaintain records regarding covered task, individual performing, evaluation method(s), continuing\nperformance evaluation, reevaluation interval, and reevaluation records. An inspector is not required\nto specifically request a particular form or document, as the inspector would have no knowledge of\nevery form that an operator may use for its OQ Program. It is the operator that must provide proof\nof compliance. Respondent has an affirmative duty to achieve and maintain compliance. Therefore,\nduring a pipeline safety inspection operators must provide the documentation and records, as\nrequired by federal pipeline safety laws and regulations, to demonstrate compliance.\nUltimately, the Respondent is responsible for compliance with the pipeline safety regulations, which\nincludes sound record keeping. During the inspection, in response to the Notice, and at the hearing,\nRespondent failed to present adequate evidence to demonstrate that an acceptable method,\ntransitional or otherwise, was used to qualifL the employees in question to perform the covered task\nunder Respondent's OQ program. No records were provided by Respondent to validate the\nevaluations or to show that Respondent reviewed corresponding records to ensure that each of the\nemployees in question successfully performed each covered task, \"qualified\" to perform. The\nrecords were not provided during the inspection nor during the post inspection exit interview.\n\n\n\nOn one hand, Respondent argued that there was a seamless transition of ownership interest from\nWilliams to Magellan and all relevant records were transferred for applicable employees. If they\nwere one and the same, then all of Respondent's OQ records and supporting documentation should\nhave been readily available and provided during the inspection. The records and documentation of\nthe qualification method used by Respondent should have been provided during the inspection to\nadequately show that an acceptable method was used for qualification and that employees were\nproperly qualified to perform the covered task. Respondent has not provided any explanation or\njustification why the records and documentation were not provided during the inspection or exit\ninterview to demonstrate compliance.\nWithout the required records and history, it is difficult for an operator to demonstrate that employees\nare properly qualified to perform specific covered tasks, that they performed these tasks on a regular\nbasis prior to the effective date of the rule and that they performed the tasks without error.\nAccordingly,I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $195.505(b), as Respondent failed to provide\nadequate records or data that carefully and thoroughly document and support the evaluation and\nqualification of the employees to perform specific covered tasks under Respondent's OQ program.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. $ 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. $ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree\nof Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the\npenalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's\nability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed\na total civil penalty of $ 183,500 for violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.\nThe proposed civil penalty for Item 1A & B is $183,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(b), as\nRespondent failed to provide records to demonstrate that three hundred and fifteen (3 15) of its\nemployees were properly qualified to perform the covered task under Respondent's operator\nqualification (OQ) program. Respondent also failed to ensure through evaluations that individuals\nperforming covered tasks are qualified. Respondent countered that, given its response in the Post-\nHearing Brief, to assess a civil penalty is without merit and unsubstantiated. Respondent also argued\nthat after learning of the concerns expressed by the inspection team at the exit interview, it\nimmediately commenced and diligently pursued acts to address those concerns. The concerns were\naddressed by the submission of a written action plan within approximately two (2) months of the\ninspection. Respondent also incorporated the results of the written action plan into its 2005 OQ\nPlan. Respondent also contended that the proposed civil penalty is greater than penalties assessed\nagainst other companies for violation of 49 C.F.R. $195.505.\n\n\n\nFirst, the assessment of civil penalties takes into account all of the factors identified in 49 C.F.R.\n$190.225 and the application of those factors are fact specific to the individual case in question.\nTherefore, Respondent is not privy to all of the various circumstances that may exist in a particular\ncase, so any attempt to make a comparison based upon violation of a particular regulation and the\namount of the penalty will produce an inaccurate and flawed result.\nSecond, a determination was made in the \"Findings\" section of this Order that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(b), as Respondent failed to provide adequate records or data that carefully and\nthoroughly document and support the evaluation or qualification of the employees to perform\nspecific covered tasks under Respondent's OQ program referenced in Item 1A of the Notice.\nAlthough Respondent argued that the assessment of the proposed civil penalty is without merit and\nunsubstantiated, Respondent has not provided any additional evidence to show that it demonstrated\ncompliance with 49 C.F.R. 195.505(b) during the inspection or during the exit interview when the\ninspection team alerted the Respondent to deficiencies. The regulatory conditions for the conduct\nof inspections to determine compliance and gives OPS the general authority to inspect pipelines and\nrelated records for compliance with applicable regulations is set forth in 49 C.F.R. $190.203.\nRespondent is under an affirmative duty to achieve and maintain compliance. Respondent failed to\nmeet its duty. Respondent failed to justify mitigation or elimination of the civil penalty.\nAs for Item lB, Respondent failed to ensure through evaluations that individuals performing covered\ntasks are qualified. Respondent had begun the re-evaluation of employees, however, in many\ninstances the evaluations were invalid. The inspection revealed evidence of \"group\" performance\nevaluations, rather than individual evaluations and evaluations were given to a group for\n\"discussion\" of the performance of a task. There was also evidence of two individuals re-evaluating\nand qualifying each other, as well as evidence that some individuals performing evaluations were\nnot qualified to perform the covered task, were not subject matter experts and were not provided a\nstandard \"script\" with which to conduct the evaluation. The Work History Performance Review\nField Worksheet (WHPR) submitted by Respondent records contained an individual's name,\nemployee ID number, an evaluator's name, a date and a table of covered tasks and columns to list\nrecords and knowledge. However, no additional documentation was provided to show corresponding\nrecords were reviewed to ensure the employees' successful performance of each covered task\nreferred to as \"qualified\" to perform.\nRespondent did not contest the allegation of violation but offered an explanation. On December 29,\n2005, Respondent submitted additional records. These records indicated that each individual whose\nqualifications were performed by WPHR have been re-evaluated or no longer perform covered tasks.\nAgain, the Respondent is responsible for compliance with the pipeline safety regulations, which\nincludes sound record keeping. Without adequate records it is difficult for to verify compliance with\nthe Operator Qualification requirements. The primary objective of the Federal pipeline safety\nstandards is safe operation of pipeline systems. Failure to conduct a proper operator qualification\nevaluation, the operator risks that a task essential in the day to day operation of the pipeline be\nincorrectly performed on its facility and thereby increases the risk of harm to the public and the\nenvironment.\n\n\n\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent\na total civil penalty of $183,500 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.505(b).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. 5 89.2 1(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve\nCommunications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are\ncontained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial\nOperations Division (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical\nCenter, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73 125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $1 83,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5 3717,31 C.F.R. 5 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. 5 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is\nnot made 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 United States District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. §195.505(b). Under 49 U.S.C. 5 601 18(a), each person who engages in the transportation\nof hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Regional Director has indicated that\nRespondent has taken the following actions specified in the proposed compliance order:\nRespondent submitted records to show that each individual, whose qualifications were\nperformed by work performance history review, have been reevaluated or no longer performs\ncovered tasks.\nAccordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation, the compliance\nterms are not included in this Order.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. 5 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this\nFinal Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final\nOrder and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits payment for the\ncivil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for\nreconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nSEP - 6 2006\nDate ISS&\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":27920}