{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420055037","title":"PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-10-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(f), 195.452(h)(2).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055037.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055037.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420055037","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420055037","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(f),  195.452(h)(2). The case was opened on 2005-10-11 and is reported as closed as of 2007-02-09. Proposed civil penalty: $200,000. Assessed civil penalty: $200,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420055037_Final Order_01092007.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055037/420055037_Final%20Order_01092007.pdf\n\n420055037_Notice_Letter_10112005.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055037/420055037_Notice_Letter_10112005.pdf\n\nCPF_NO_4-2005-5037.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420055037/CPF_NO_4-2005-5037.pdf\n\n420055037_Final Order_01092007.pdf\n\nU.S. Department 400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nof Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\nJAEI - 9 2007\nMs. Margaret Yaege\nPresident\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company\n600 N Dairy Ashford St\nHouston, TX 77079- 1 100\nRe: CPF No. 4-2005-5037\nDear Ms. Yaege:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety\nin the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of\n$200,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action\ncloses automatically upon payment. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service under 49\nC.F.R. 8 190.5.\nSincerely,\nV\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline ~ o m ~ l i a n c e Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\nIn the Matter of\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company, ) CPF NO. 4-2005-5037\nRespondent\n) 1\n1\n)\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 7-10 and 20-24, 2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5 601 17, representatives of the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection\nof Respondent's written integrity management program in Ponca City, Oklahoma. As a result of\nthe inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, issued to Respondent, by letter dated October 11,\n2005, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with\n49 C.F.R. $ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations\nof 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $200,000 for the alleged\nviolations.\nRespondent responded to the Notice by letter dated November 16,2005 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegations of violation, offered information in explanation of the allegations and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not request a\nhearing, and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(f)(4) and (h)(l) by\nfailing to reduce operating pressure after Respondent discovered 12 immediate repair conditions.\nIn its Response, Respondent argued that it had determined the anomalous conditions were\nactually 180-day conditions based on Respondent's experience from excavating similarly\nreported anomalies.\nSection 195.452(f)(4) requires each hazardous liquid pipeline operator to have an integrity\nmanagement program that includes criteria for addressing anomalous conditions discovered\nthrough integrity assessments. Section 195.452(h)(l) requires operators to take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions discovered through an integrity assessment. Specific\nremediation requirements are prescribed in subsection (h)(4) for certain conditions-for\nexample, subsection (h)(4)(i) requires operators to temporarily reduce operating pressure or shut\n\n\n\ndown a pipeline until \"immediate repair conditions\" are repaired. An immediate repair condition\nis, among other things, a dent located on the top of the pipeline with a depth greater than 6% of\nthe nominal pipe diameter. Subsection (h)(4)(iii) requires operators to schedule evaluation and\nremediation of \"180-day conditions\" within 180 days of discovery of the condition. A 180-day\ncondition is, among other things, a dent located on the bottom of the pipeline with a depth\ngreater than 6% of the nominal pipe diameter.\nIn July 2003, Respondent performed an integrity assessment on the Villa Ridge to E. St. Louis\nsection of its pipeline using a caliper geometry tool. The single channel caliper tool was capable\nof detecting dents and the depths of those dents, but could not provide the orientation (o'clock\nposition) of the anomalies. Shortly after the July 2003 tool run, Respondent received a\npreliminary report from the tool vendor that identified 12 dents with a depth of greater than 6%\nof nominal pipe diameter. Since the orientation of the dents was unknown, Respondent\ncategorized the dents as immediate repair conditions (top-side orientation) and reduced operating\npressure until the conditions were repaired. When Respondent excavated the conditions,\nRespondent found that their orientation was on the bottom side of the pipe.\nIn August 2003, Respondent received the final report for the tool run. Respondent did not\nanticipate that the report would include additional immediate repair conditions, so the report was\nplaced in a queue to be evaluated later. In December 2003, Respondent discovered that the final\nreport identified 12 additional dents of greater than 6% depth with unknown orientations. Based\non its experience with the previous 12 dents, Respondent believed the newly-reported dents were\nalso bottom side dents and treated them as 180-day conditions. Accordingly, Respondent did not\ntake an immediate pressure reduction. Respondent has stated that the conditions were\nremediated within the applicable 180-day time frame.'\nThe Notice alleged Respondent violated 5 195.452(f)(4) and (h)(l) by failing to address the\nnewly-reported dents as immediate repair conditions. Since the depths of the dents were greater\nthan 6% of nominal pipe diameter and the orientation was unknown, the Notice alleged\nRespondent was required to treat the dents as immediate repair conditions and take a pressure\nreduction until the conditions were repaired. In its Response, Respondent argued that it had\ndetermined the newly-reported dents were 180-day conditions based on its experience from\nexcavating the first 12 reported conditions. \"Based on actual conditions found\" that showed the\nfirst set of conditions were bottom-side, Respondent believed the newly-reported conditions were\nalso bottom side dents.2 Respondent asserted that the regulations provide latitude for operators\nto determine when adequate information exists about a defect and to determine the priority for\nrepair. Otherwise, Respondent stated, operators would not be Pemitted to use knowledge of\ntheir systems when evaluating conditions and prioritizing repairs.\nEach pipeline operator's integrity management program is tailor-made to address integrity issues\nbased on that operator's experience and knowledge of their particular pipeline system. Decisions\nconcerning the program must necessarily be based on sufficient factual data. In this case,\n- - -\nI Response, p.3. Respondent also stated that it confirmed the newly-reported dents were bottom-\nside when the conditions were repaired.\n2\n- Id.\n3 Response, p.2.\n\n\n\nRespondent decided that newly-reported anomalies were sufficiently similar to those previously\nreported and excavated that the dents would necessarily have the same orientation. While there\nmay be some situations where characteristics of one anomaly can be deduced by comparing tool\nrun data of two like-anomalies with the excavation information from just one, that practice\nwould require enough intelligent tool run data to justify the initial inference that the anomalies\nare sufficiently similar. Respondent did not have enough intelligent tool run data to justify the\ninference that the unexcavated anomalies have the same orientation as those that had been\nexcavated. The caliper tool reported only the existence of dents and their depth, but did not\nprovide any information concerning orientation. Respondent has not shown how the previous\nexcavations provided any information concerning the similarity of the unexcavated conditions.\nAlthough Respondent stated in its Response that the two sets of dents were \"similarly reported,\"\nRespondent did not explain how this conclusion was reached or the facts that formed the basis\nfor this concl~sion.~\nThe protection of pipeline integrity from identified anomalous conditions is a chief objective of\nthe integrity management regulations. Where orientation data is missing, and it is the\ndeterminative factor in categorizing a dent as an immediate repair condition, Respondent must\ntreat the unknown variable as \"worst case\" (top-side) unless there is sufficient factual\ninformation to justify a different decision. In this case, Respondent did not have enough factual\ndata, or at least none was provided to PHMSA, to support Respondent's decision that the 12\nunexcavated conditions were bottom-side dents. Accordingly, Respondent was required to treat\nthe dents with unknown orientation and depths of greater than 6% as immediate repair conditions\nand reduce operating pressure until the dents were repaired.\nRespondent acknowledged that it did not reduce operating pressure upon discovery of the 12\nnewly-reported conditions. Accordingly, 1 find Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(0(4)\nand (h)(l) by failing to reduce operating pressure upon discovery of 12 immediate repair\nconditions.\nItem 2 in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(0(4) and (h)(2) by failing\nto discover anomalous conditions promptly and no later than 180 days after an integrity\nassessment. Section 195.452(0(4) requires operators to have an integrity management program\nthat includes criteria for addressing anomalous conditions discovered through integrity\nassessment. Subsection (h)(2) specifies that operators must obtain sufficient information\nfollowing an integrity assessment to discover each anomalous condition and to classify each\ncondition in accordance with the time periods for remediation prescribed in subsection (h)(4).\nDiscovery must be made promptly, but not later than 180 days after an integrity assessment.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent failed to promptly discover anomalous conditions identified\nby several inline inspection (ILI) integrity assessments, despite having sufficient information\nwell before the end of the 180-day deadline for discovery. The Notice listed 23 specific ILI tool\nruns from which Respondent's discovery of conditions was close to or exceeding the 180-day\ndeadline despite Respondent's receipt of the final ILI reports months earlier. In its Response,\nRespondent acknowledged that it failed to meet the 180-day deadline in some instances, but\nargued that it met the deadline for most of the ILI runs listed in the Notice, noting that those\n- -\n4Response, p.2.\n\n\n\ndiscovery dates were recorded within 180 days of the assessments. Respondent explained that\noperators need to be permitted to use the full 180 days for evaluation, because \"discovery may\nrequire analysis [and] integration of information from various source^.\"^ Respondent objected to\nany \"generalized finding that receipt of a Final report provides adequate information [for\ndiscovery].\"6\nDepending on the nature of the conditions reported and other circumstances, the final (and\noftentimes preliminary) ILI reports will provide an operator with sufficient information to enable\ndiscovery of anomalous conditions.' During the June 2005 inspection, PHMSA found particular\nILI reports provided Respondent sufficient information to discover anomalous conditions well-\nbefore Respondent actually declared discovery. In each case, Respondent's discovery of the\nconditions was close to or exceeding the 180-day deadline, which in turn delayed the regulatory\ndeadline for remediation of the condition^.^ Although Respondent correctly stated that discovery\nsometimes requires the gathering and integration of information from other sources, Respondent\ndid not specifically claim that it needed to gather and integrate information from sources other\nthan the ILI reports listed in the Notice. Respondent did not provide any evidence that\ncontradicted the allegation in the Notice that Respondent had sufficient information from the ILI\nreports to enable earlier discovery of the conditions.\nIn its Response, Respondent stated that it has modified its process so that it will discover\nconditions within 180 days of each integrity assessment. Respondent also explained that\nwhenever a deadline had been missed, Respondent reduced the time allowed for remediation to\nensure that repairs would not also be delayed. Respondent's actions are noted, but they do not\ndemonstrate compliance with respect to the alleged violation. Accordingly, I find Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. tj 195.452(f)(4) and (h)(2) by failing to discover anomalous conditions\npromptly and no later than 180 days after ILI tool assessments.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n5 Response, p.4.\n6 Id.-\n7 PHMSA has communicated this and other informal guidance concerning compliance with the\nintegrity management regulations on PHMSA's Implementing Integrity Management for Hazardous\nLiquid Operators web site at htt~://vrimis.~hmsa.dot.gov/iim. Specifically, Frequently Asked Question\n(FAQ) 7.3 states: \"What constitutes 'discovery of a condition'? Discovery of a condition occurs when an\noperator has adequate information about the condition to determine that it presents a potential threat to the\nintegrity of the pipeline. Depending on circumstances, an operator may have adequate information when\nthe operator receives the preliminary internal inspection report, gathers and integrates information from\nother inspections, or when an operator receives the final internal inspection report. Operators are required\nto obtain sufficient information about a condition to make this determination no later than 180 days after\nan integrity assessment, unless the operator can demonstrate that the 180-day period is impractical.\"\n(Revised February 18, 2003). While answers to FAQs are not rules, they provide informal guidance to\nthe regulated community about how to implement their integrity management programs in accordance\nwith the requirements of 49 C.F.R. part 195.\n8The Notice listed 23 1L1runs where Respondent recorded the discovery of conditions from 175 to\n228 days after the date of the integrity assessment. Of the discoveries dated before the 180-day deadline\nhad expired, most were recorded on the 179th and 180th day after the assessment.\n\n\n\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 5 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. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $200,000 for the violations.\n49 U.S.C. 9 60122 and 49 C.F.R. tj 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.\nItem 1 in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. 9 195.452(f)(4)\nand (h)(l). Respondent failed to reduce operating pressure when it discovered 12 dents of\ngreater than 6% depth and unknown orientation. Without sufficient information concerning the\norientation of the reported dents, Respondent was required to treat the unknown orientation as\nworst case or top-side, which due to the depth of the dents required a pressure reduction until the\nconditions were repaired. Respondent's failure to reduce operating pressure upon discovery of\nimmediate repair conditions threatened the integrity of the pipeline and high consequence areas\nthat could be affected. Respondent has not submitted information that warrants reducing the\nproposed civil penalty for this violation. Respondent has previously been found in violation of\nthe integrity management and other hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations. Accordingly,\nhaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $50,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(f)(4) and (h)(l).\nItem 2 in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $150,000 for violating 49 C.F.R. 5 195.452(0(4)\nand (h)(2). Respondent failed to discover anomalous conditions promptly and no later than 180\ndays after 23 specific ILI tool assessments, despite having sufficient information from ILI reports\nseveral months prior. Respondent's failure to promptly discover and categorize conditions\nidentified by integrity assessments deferred the regulatory deadlines for remediation of\nanomalous conditions, which posed a potential threat to the integrity of pipelines that could\naffect a high consequence area. Respondent has previously been found in violation of the\nintegrity management and other hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations.\nIn its Response, Respondent noted that where the 180-day deadline was missed, Respondent\nreduced its own deadline for remediation of the conditions to ensure that repairs were not also\ndelayed. Respondent also indicated that it has modified its process for discovery to ensure that\nfuture discoveries will be made no later than 180 days from the date of an integrity assessment.\nRespondent's actions are noted; but Respondent must also ensure that discoveries are made\npromptly when sufficient information is available, even when that information is available well\nbefore the end of the 180-day deadline. Respondent has not submitted information that warrants\nreducing the proposed civil penalty amount for this item. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $150,000 for\nthe violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195,452(0(4) and (h)(2).\n\n\n\nHaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total\ncivil penalty of $200,000. Respondent has the ability to pay the assessed penalty without\nadversely affecting its ability to continue in business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. 5 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73 125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $200,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in 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\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. 5 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However, if Respondent submits\npayment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the\nright to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are\neffective on receipt.\nJAN - 9 2007\nDate Issued\nssociate Administrator\n\n420055037_Notice_Letter_10112005.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n8701 S. Gessner, Suite 1110\nHouston, TX 77074\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nAND\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 11, 2005\nPresident\nMs. Margaret Yaege\nConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company\n600 North Dairy Ashford\nHouston, TX 77079\nCPF No. 4-2005-5037\nDear Ms. Yaege:\nOn June 7-10 and 20-24, 2005, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States\nCode, conducted an inspection of ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company (CPPL) Integrity\nManagement Program (IMP) in Ponca City, OK.\nAs a result of this inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations, as noted\nbelow, of the pipeline safety regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 195. The\nprobable violations are:\n§195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(t) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An integrity\nmanagement program begins with the initial framework. An operator must\ncontinually change the program to reflect operating experience, conclusions drawn\ntrom results of the integrity assessments, and other maintenance and surveillance\ndata, and evaluation of consequences of a failure on the high consequence area.\nmegay management program\nAn operator must include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written\n\n\n\n(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the\nsection)\nassessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to address\nall anomalous conditions that the operator discovers through the integrity\noperator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that\nassessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions, an\ncould reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate\nthat the remediation of the condition will ensure that the condition is unlikely\nto pose a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. A reduction in\noperating pressure cannot exceed 365 days without an operator taking\nfurther remedial action to ensure the safety of the pipeline. An operator must\ncomply with §195.422 when making a repair.\nThe OPS inspection of ILl results and associated repair records identified\nsome issues with\nrespect to the completion of repairs of anomalies. The IM rule requires an operator to take\nprompt action to address all anomalous conditions that the operator discovers through the\nintegrity assessment or information analysis. On 7/23/2003, the Villa Ridge to E. St. Louis\npipeline section was assessed using a geometry tool; and the deformation too! measured depth,\nbut it could not give orientation.\nTwenty-four anomalies ranging from 6.31% to 25.9%\ndeformation were reported in the ILl Vendor's Final Report, dated 08/12/2003. Discovery was on\n12/30/03, which is the date on which CPPL issued the transmittal letter reporting the assessment.\nfindings and defining required repairs. As of 12/30/03, twelve anomalies remained un-evaluated\nand not remediated. Since the orientation was unknown and all anomalies were reported above\nreduction taken until all of the anomalies could be evaluated. No evidence that a pressure\n6% deformation, the anomalies should have been treated as immediate repairs and a pressure\nreduction was taken in the remediation of these defects was provided to OPS at the time of the\ninspection.\n2.\n§195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(f) (4) (see above)\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(2) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an operator\nhas adequate information about the condition to determine that the\ncondition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the pipeline. An\noperator must promptly, but no later than 180 days after an integrity\nassessment, obtain sufficient information about a condition to make that\nis impracticable.\ndetermination, unless the operator can demonstrate that the 180-day period\nThe OPS inspection of ILl results and associated repair records identified some issues with\ncategorize an anomaly within 180 days after completing an assessment. On a significant\nrespect to the timeliness of \"discovery\" of anomalies.\nThe IM rule requires an operator to\npercentage of their assessments, CPPL is taking the full 180 days to categorize anomalies as 60\n\n\n\nand 180 day conditions and declare discovery, even when the vendor's final report has been\nreceived well in advance of that discovery date; and adequate information was available to CPPL\nto declare discovery in the form of the ILI Vendor's final report.\nSpecific examples of\nassessments where discovery was declared well after receipt of the ILl Vendor's Final Report and\nnear or exceeding the end of the maximum 180 day discovery period are detailed in the table\nbelow. The transmittal letter date indicates when the ILI Integrity Worklist Spreadsheet was sent\nto the field to initiate repairs or evaluations and when discovery of conditions was declared by\nPipeline Segment\nIL Tool\nFinal Report\n180 Day\nTransmittal Letter\nRun Date\nDate\nDiscovery\nDate and Discovery\nDeadline\nDeclared\nHardtner to MP271\n12/14/03\n01/05/04\n6/11/04\n7/9/04\nLeeton to\n07/28/04\n09/21/04\n1/24/05\n1/24/05\nHarrisonville\nRosebud to\n07/28/04\n9/27/04\n1/24/05\n1/24/05\nJefferson City\nHarrisonville to Paola\n07/28/04\n10/5/04\n1/25/05\n1/24/05\nVilla Ridge to\n07/28/04\n9/7/04\n1/24/05\n1/24/05\nRosebud\nJefferson City to\n07/17/04\n9/15/04\n1/13/05\n1/11/05\nSyracuse\nKankakee to East\n12/05/03\n1/5/04\n6/2/04\n5/28/04\nChicago\nChocolate Bayou to\n09/01/04\n11/1/04\n3/1/05\n3/1/05\nWebster\nAustin to LaGrange\n09/02/04\n12/13/04\n3/1/05\n2/28/05\nBrookshire to\n09/03/04\n11/16/04\n3/2/05\n3/1/05\nSweeney\nFredericksburg to\n09/02/04\n11/29/04\n3/1/05\n2/28/05\nAustin\nMP50 to Laverne\n10/15/04\n1/3/05\n4/13/05\n4/13/05\nVilla Ridge to E. St.\n06/23/04\n7/30/04\n12/20/04\n12/16/04\nLouis\nCoalinga to Rodeo\n08/29/04\n12/23/04\n2/25/05\n4/14/05\nFalls Terminal\nArcher #1 to Wichita\n11/21/03\n3/1/04\n6/6/04\n6/6/04\nSneed to Borger\n10/26/04\n1/3/05\nBorger to Skellytown\n4/24/05\n5/2/05\nRock Creek to\n10/28/04\n1/3/05\n4/26/05\n5/16/05\n10/23/03\n12/3/03\n4/20/04\n4/19/04\nPaola to Kansas City\nBorger\n12/20/03\n1/27/04\n6/18/04\n7/21/04\nDouglas to\nWheatland\n10/21/04\n1/3/05\n4/19/05\n4/26/05\nSweeney to\n12/08/03\n1/5/04\n6/5/04\n6/11/04\nPasadena\nOdessa to Gaines\n11/18/03\n12/15/03\n5/16/04\n5/13/04\nCanyon to MP250\n10/29/03\n1/15/04\n4/26/04\n4/27/04\n\n\n\nUnder 49 United States Code §60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000\nfor each violation for each day the violation persists up to a maximum of $1,000,000 tor any\nrelated series of violations.\nThe Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation and it is recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $200,000 ($50,000 for Item 1 and $150,000 for\nItem 2).\nEnclosed with this Notice of Probable Violation is a description of the courses of action available\nto you in responding to this Notice. Please note that regardless of the course of action you elect\nto follow, you must respond within 30 days of your receipt of this Notice. Your failure to respond\nwithin 30 days will result in referral to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, to\nfind the facts to be as alleged herein and order a civil penalty.\nPlease refer to CPF No. 4-2005-5037 for any correspondence on this matter.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nEnclosure","truncated":false,"body_characters":28162}