{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420145010","title":"CITGO PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2014-04-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.446(e), 199.105(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420145010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420145010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420145010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420145010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving CITGO PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.446(e),  199.105(b). The case was opened on 2014-04-24 and is reported as closed as of 2015-06-23. Proposed civil penalty: $123,800. Assessed civil penalty: $123,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420145010_Closure_06232015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145010/420145010_Closure_06232015.pdf\n\n420145010_Closure_06232015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145010/420145010_Closure_06232015_text.pdf\n\n420145010_Final Order_03252015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145010/420145010_Final%20Order_03252015.pdf\n\n420145010_Final Order_03252015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145010/420145010_Final%20Order_03252015_text.pdf\n\n420145010_NOPV PCP PCO_04242014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145010/420145010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04242014.pdf\n\n420145010_NOPV PCP PCO_04242014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145010/420145010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_04242014_text.pdf\n\n420145010_Operator Response Notice_05282014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420145010/420145010_Operator%20Response%20Notice_05282014.pdf\n\n420145010_NOPV PCP PCO_04242014_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nApril 24, 2014\nMr. Jim Sanders\nGeneral Manager\nCitgo Pipeline Company\n1293 Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, Texas 77077\nCPF 4-2014-5010\nDear Mr. Sanders:\nOn October 29, 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code conducted an investigation of an accident that occurred within the Sour Lake\nTank Farm on October 18, 2012.\nAs a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the\nprobable violation(s) are:\n1. §199.105 Drug tests required:\nEach operator shall conduct the following drug tests for the presence of a prohibited drug:\n(b) Post-accident testing. As soon as possible but no later than 32 hours after an accident,\nan operator shall drug test each employee whose performance either contributed to the\naccident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident. An\noperator may decide not to test under this paragraph but such a decision must be based on\nthe best information available immediately after the accident that the employee's\nperformance could not have contributed to the accident or that, because of the time\nbetween that performance and the accident, it is not likely that a drug test would reveal\nwhether the performance was affected by drug use.\n\n\n\nCITGO did not perform Post-accident drug and alcohol testing on their controller following an\naccident at their Sour Lake Tank Farm facility on October 18, 2012, resulting in the release of\n718 barrels of crude oil from a 6” surge line connected to Tank 376.\nThe controller’s failure to take action upon receipt of the initial creep alarm on the SCADA\nsystem prolonged the release of product from the Tank as the leak continued for two additional\nhours.\n2. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and\nhandling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate\nchanges made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts\nshall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\n§195.446 Control room management.\n(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have a written alarm\nmanagement plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms.\nThe operator failed to include the definition of creep alarm and how to handle them within their\nwritten procedures manual.\nOn October 18, 2012, a creep alarm was received by the controller, and he did not react after the\nfirst alarm because there was no written policy in place on how to handle the alarm. The\ncontroller did respond after the second creep alarm was received two hours later that indicated\nthat the level in Tank 376 was continuing to decrease.\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\nGeneral. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and\nhandling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at\nintervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate\nchanges made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and appropriate parts\nshall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted\n2\n\n\n\nCITGO failed to complete its assessment to determine the corrosive effect of the transported\nproducts and the removal of all of the low flow/dead leg piping in Sour Lake tank farm.\nOn July 11, 2011, CITGO responded to Compliance Order 4-2007-5010 stating that they would\ncomplete a dead leg removal programs as part of their Facility Integrity Plans.\nHowever, CITGO indicated in correspondence following the accident that the pipe involved in\nthe accident was inadvertently overlooked as part of the dead leg removal project evaluation.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000\nper violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of\nviolations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not\nexceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a\nrelated series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and\nsupporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that\nyou be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $123,800 for item 2.\nWarning Items\nWith respect to Items 1 and 3 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct these items. Failure to\ndo so may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Citgo Pipeline\nCompany. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of\nthis Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators\nin Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If\nyou believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment\nunder 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second\ncopy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted\nand an explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential\ntreatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\n3\n\n\n\nthis constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and authorizes the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice without further\nnotice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2014-5010 and for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to CITGO a Compliance Order incorporating the\nfollowing remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of CITGO with the pipeline safety\nregulations:\n1. 2. 3. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to CITGO’s failure to include\nthe definition of creep alarms and how to handle them within their written\nprocedures manual. CITGO is required to amend their procedures to define a\ncreep alarm and the actions to be taken in response to the alarm.\nThe procedure should be sent to the Southwest Region within 30 days after\nreceipt of Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that CITGO maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit\nthe total to R. M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in\ntwo categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans,\nprocedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements,\nadditions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n420145010_Closure_06232015_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 23, 2015\nMr. Nelson Martinez\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nCITGO Petroleum Corporation\n1293 Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, TX 77077-1670\nCPF 4-2014-5010\nDear Mr. Martinez:\nOn October 29, 2012, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code conducted an investigation of an accident that occurred within the Sour Lake\nTank Farm on October 18, 2012.\nAs a result of the investigation a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice) CPF 4-2014-5010, was issued to Citgo Pipeline Company\non April 24, 2014. CITGO responded by letter on May 28, 2014, and provided responses to the\nthree (3) alleged violations. On March 25, 2015, PHMSA issued a Final Order in the matter\nwhich was received by CITGO on April 27, 2015. CITGO was assessed a penalty of\n$123,800.00 in the Final Order and payment of the penalty was made on April 13, 2015. On May\n25, 2015 PHMSA requested CITGO to send its amended procedure to the Director of Southwest\nRegion for review and approval. CITGO submitted the requested procedural modifications on\nJune 10, 2015 and received “final” revised procedure on June 15, 2015. My staff reviewed the\namended procedure, and it appears that the inadequacies have been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank you\nfor your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nR. M. Seeley\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420145010_Final Order_03252015_text.pdf\n\nMarch 25, 2015\nMr. Nelson Martinez\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nCITGO Petroleum Corporation\n1293 Eldridge Parkway\nHouston, TX 77077-1670\nRe: CPF No. 4-2014-5010\nDear Mr. Martinez:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes one finding\nof violation, assesses a civil penalty of $123,800, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nyour subsidiary, CITGO Pipeline Company, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The\npenalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and\nthe terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region,\nthis enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed\neffective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided 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\ncc: Mr. Rodrick Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Glenn Hilman, Terminal Facilities and Pipeline, CITGO Petroleum Corporation\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nCITGO Pipeline Company, )\na subsidiary of CITGO Petroleum Corporation, )\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 4-2014-5010\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 29, 2012, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), initiated\nan investigation of an accident involving the pipeline system of CITGO Pipeline Company\n(CITGO or Respondent). CITGO is a subsidiary of CITGO Petroleum Corporation, which owns\nand operates oil refineries and related pipeline facilities in Texas, Louisiana, and Illinois, with a\ndaily refining capacity of 750,000 barrels.1\nThe investigation arose out of a crude-oil release that occurred on October 18, 2012, at CITGO’s\nSour Lake Tank Farm in Sour Lake, Texas. At the time of the accident, a six-inch surge pipeline\nat the facility was not in service, but several areas of internal corrosion had caused the pipeline to\nerode and ultimately fail. The resulting accident resulted in approximately 718 barrels of crude\noil being spilled at the Tank Farm.\n2\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 24, 2014, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance\nwith 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that CITGO had violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.402 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $123,800 for the alleged violation.\nCITGO Petroleum Corporation responded to the Notice by letter dated May 28, 2014\n(Response). The company did not contest the allegation of violation but provided information\nconcerning the corrective actions CITGO had taken, submitted copies of its revised procedures,\nand requested that OPS reduce the proposed civil penalty. Respondent did not request a hearing\n1 http://www.citgo.com/WebOther/CITGOforYourBusiness/CompanyProfile.pdf (last accessed on November 26,\n2014).\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (April 23, 2014) (on file with PHMSA), at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 4-2014-5010\nPage 2\nand therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 195, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a),\n3 which states:\n§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and\nemergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline\nsystem a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies. This manual shall be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year, and appropriate changes made\nas necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This manual shall be\nprepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence, and\nappropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and\nmaintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and\nfollow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations\nand maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that CITGO failed to have a written alarm management plan to provide for\neffective controller response to “creep alarms.” The Notice further alleged that even though\nRespondent’s controller registered a creep alarm on October 18, 2012, he was unable to\nimmediately respond to the release because CITGO had not instituted a written policy for\nhandling such alarms. Instead, the controller waited until a second creep alarm sounded before\ncontacting the field to investigate the dropping tank level.4\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, but provided several reasons why it\nthought the proposed civil penalty should be reduced. These arguments will be addressed in the\n“Assessment of Penalty” section below.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling\nabnormal operations and emergencies.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\n3 The Notice also referenced 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(e), which states: “Each operator using a SCADA system must\nhave a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller response to alarms….”\n4 Violation Report, at 4.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 4-2014-5010\nPage 3\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $123,800 for the violation cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $123,800 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual of\nwritten procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling\nabnormal operations and emergencies. CITGO objected to the proposed civil penalty for several\nreasons. First, it argued that having a written process at the time of the accident for handling\ncreep alarms would not have “prevented” the accident because the controller “had a reasonable\nbasis to believe that the alarm had been triggered by the tank settling after being filled” and\ntherefore no further action was warranted. Second, the company argued that the controller’s\n“subsequent conduct to monitor the situation was consistent with his training.” Last, CITGO\ncontended that the leak was restricted to the tank containment area, had no adverse offsite\nimpacts, and was appropriately addressed.5\nI find that there are several reasons to impose the civil penalty as proposed. First, OPS\ndiscovered this violation; it was not self-reported by the operator. Second, the operator failed to\ntake appropriate action prior to the accident to comply with the regulatory requirement by having\nan effective written procedure in place and this noncompliance increased the consequences of the\nrelease. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $123,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Item cited\nabove, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $123,800.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to 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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\n5 Response, at 2-3.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 4-2014-5010\nPage 4\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $123,800 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. 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 district\ncourt of the United States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the\nauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the\nfollowing actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(a) (Item 2), Respondent must amend\nits procedures to include in its written manual of procedures a definition of creep\nalarms and state the actions that must be taken in responding to this kind of alarm.\nThe procedure must be sent to the Director, Southwest Region, for review and\napproval, within 30 days of receiving this Final Order.\n2. It is requested that CITGO maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to\nR.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions, and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\n\n\n\nCPF No: 4-2014-5010\nPage 5\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1 and 3, the Notice alleged probable violations of 49 C.F.R. Parts 199 and\n195 but did not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are\nconsidered to be warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct post-\naccident drug and alcohol tests on the controller as soon as possible, but no later\nthan 32 hours after the accident; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to prepare and\nfollow a manual of written procedures for handling abnormal operations and\nemergencies by failing to complete its assessment of the potential for corrosion on\nits low flow/dead leg pipeline at the Sour Lake tank farm.\nCITGO presented information in its Response showing it had taken certain actions to address the\ncited items and objecting to OPS’ position that the company had failed to perform post-accident\ndrug and alcohol testing on its controller following the accident. If OPS finds a violation of any\nof these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243 Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all\nother terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":25810}