PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF420155025_NOPV PCO_10292015.pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF420155025_NOPV PCO_10292015_text.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF420155025_Operator Response to Notice_12022015.pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF420155025_Petition for Reconsideration_01232017.pdf#

420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFJune 30, 2017 Mr. Greg Armstrong Chairman and CEO Plains All American Pipeline, LP 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Re: CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Dear Mr. Armstrong: Enclosed please find the Decision on Reconsideration issued in the above-referenced case. It grants your Petition for Reconsideration and withdraws both findings of violation contained in the Final Order. The Final Order did not require any compliance actions or assess a civil penalty, and therefore this case is now closed. Service of the Decision by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Dean Gore, Vice President of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002 Mr. Troy E. Valenzuela, Vice President, Environmental, Health, & Safety 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002 CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Plains Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2015-5025 ) Petitioner. ) ____________________________________) DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION Between April 2014 and October 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted several on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of Plains All American Pipeline, LP d/b/a Plains Pipeline, LP (Plains or Petitioner), for Plains’ Jal, New Mexico, to Wink, Texas pipeline construction project (Project). As a result of the inspections, on October 29, 2015, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Plains.1 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Plains had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.222(a), and proposed ordering Petitioner to take certain corrective actions to address these alleged violations. Plains responded to the Notice by letter dated December 2, 2015 (Response), contesting the Notice’s allegations and requesting that the Notice be withdrawn. 2 Plains did not request a hearing. On December 27, 2016, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this proceeding.3 The order found that Plains had committed violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.222(a), as alleged in the Notice. The Final Order also found that Plains had taken action to satisfy the proposed compliance order. Although no corrective action or civil penalties were ordered, the Final Order stated that these findings of violation would be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Plains. 1 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), C.P.F. No. 4-2015-5025 (Oct. 29, 2015) (available at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/420155025/420155025_NOPV%20 &%20PCO_10292015_text.pdf). 2 Plains Response to Notice (Response), (Dec. 2, 2015) (on file with PHMSA). 3 In the Matter of Plains Pipeline, LP, Final Order, C.P.F. No. 4-2015-5025, 2016 WL 8223691 (Dec. 27, 2016) (Final Order).#

420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Page 2 Plains filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Final Order on January 23, 2017, seeking reconsideration of both findings of violation and withdrawal of the Final Order. Plains attached new evidence to the Petition in support of its arguments, some of which Plains asserted was inadvertently omitted from its Response. Other evidence was not submitted with its Response because Plains assumed PHMSA already had the evidence. Having considered the new evidence submitted, I find that Plains has demonstrated that it did not violate the regulations as previously determined in the December 27, 2016 Final Order. Accordingly, for the reasons below, I am granting the Petition for Reconsideration and withdrawing both findings of violation contained in the Final Order. Standard of Review Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, an operator may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order issued under § 190.213. Reconsideration does not constitute an appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. It is instead an opportunity for respondents to request that errors in the final order be corrected or to present information that was not previously available, if the petitioner submits a valid reason explaining why such information was not presented prior to issuance of the final order. PHMSA may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings, but may request additional information or comment if deemed appropriate. Under § 190.243(b), the respondent must submit reasoning why any additional facts or arguments were not presented prior to issuance of the final order. Plains presented new evidence in its Petition and asserted that this evidence should be considered on reconsideration. The Petition states that “documents intended to be included with the [Response] were inadvertently omitted when . . . submitted.” These documents include purchase orders, shipping papers, and milltest reports that are central to Petitioner’s assertion that X52 pipe was used for welder qualifications. It is clear from the record that these documents were not included with the Response, though Attachment 1 to the Response does include two icons that appear to be failed attachments. I am considering these documents, given their probative value and the appearance that Petitioner attempted to submit these documents earlier. Additionally, Plains included in the Petition an affidavit from Plains’ Director of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance. The affidavit contains several factual statements that were not previously part of the record. Petitioner states that it “knew that PHMSA already had the information” contained in the affidavit, particularly that X52 pipe was used, “and as such the [Response] referred to [PHMSA’s September 22 to September 24, 2014] inspection but did not provide further documentation.” Petitioner further states that “this information should have been considered by PHMSA but it is not noted in the NOPV/PCO.” I find that Petitioner has stated a valid reason why it did not present this information more clearly in its Response and as such I will consider this information. I am, therefore, considering the additional arguments and evidence offered by Plains in its Petition, and turn now to reconsideration of the findings of violations.#

420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Page 3 Discussion A. Qualification of Welding Procedures (49 C.F.R. § 195.214) Item 1 in the Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a), which states: §195.214 Welding procedures. (a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify welding procedures must be determined by destructive testing. The Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds without having a properly-qualified welding procedure. Specifically, the Final Order found that Plains used API 5L X42 base material to qualify welders on the Project, and that X42 material was outside of the base material range specified by the welding procedures used by Plains (CS- G60L203 and CS-F52M214). As Plains’ welders performed qualification tests using a grade of material not specified by the welding procedures, the Final Order found that there was a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) and API Standard 1104 by failing to have properly-qualified welding procedures. Petitioner asserted that several newly-submitted documents confirm that X52 pipe was used during welder qualification, and that X42 was erroneously transcribed. Assuming that X52 was used as the base material for qualification, this material would be within the base material range specified by the welding procedures. Petitioner further asserted that the material used to qualify individual welders has no impact on whether the welding procedure is itself properly qualified. For the reasons discussed in more detail below, I find that X52 material was correctly used to qualify the welders, not X42. In addition, after considering all of the evidence, I find the material used to qualify the individual welders did not demonstrate the welding procedure itself was improperly qualified. Accordingly, I find that Petitioner did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds on the Project without having a properly-qualified welding procedure, as alleged in the Notice and found in the Final Order. This violation is withdrawn. B. Qualification of Welders (49 C.F.R. § 195.222) Item 2 in the Final Order found that Plains violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states: § 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualifications of welders and welding operators. (a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), except that a welder#

420155025_Decision on Reconsideration_06302017_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Page 4 or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than an edition listed in §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition.4 The Final Order found that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to properly qualify welders who performed welding on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104. Specifically, the Final Order found that Plains qualified welders using API 5L X42 base material, which was5 not allowed under their provided welding procedure specifications (CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214). While Plains argued prior to issuance of the Final Order that X52 pipe was used, and that X42 was erroneously transcribed as the material used, the Final Order determined that no evidence in the record supported this argument, such as material test reports. Plains produced new information in the Petition, including the documents that Plains purportedly intended to attach to the Response. Exhibit 1 of the Petition consists of purchase orders and milltest reports for the X52 pipe, which was delivered to the testing facility on June 20, 2014, used to conduct qualifications testing, and used to qualify 35 welders on June 23, 2014. The Petition also references the retention, by Plains’ contractor Pumpco, of the test fittings used for welder qualification. Additionally, the Petition included an affidavit from Plains’ Director of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance regarding a PHMSA inspector’s site visit to Pumpco’s welder-qualification test site. The affidavit states that Pumpco had “stacked the used test fittings in with other scrap pipe and steel scrap at the back of their yard.” The test pipe nipples each had the “welder’s name and unique ID (stencil) . . . marked on each test set,” and a demonstration was performed of how “each welder could be traced back and matched to a specific test nipple set.” These exhibits suffice to show that X52 pipe was used for welder qualification. After considering all of the evidence, I find that X52 material was used, and that this base material comports with the provided welding procedure specifications. Accordingly, after consideration of this argument and reconsideration of the record, including the newly presented evidence, I find that Petitioner did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to qualify each welder on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104, as alleged in the Notice and found in the Final Order. This violation is withdrawn. RELIEF GRANTED Based on the new information provided in the Petition, a review of the relevant portions of the record, and for the reasons stated above, I am granting the Petition for Reconsideration and withdrawing the findings of violation in the Final Order. This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding. June 30, 2017 _____________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 4 API 1104, Section 6.1, referenced by §195.222(a) above, states “[t]he purpose of the welder qualification test is to determine the ability of welders to make sound butt or fillet welds using previously qualified procedures.”#

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDecember 27, 2016 Mr. Greg Armstrong Chairman and CEO Plains Pipeline, L.P. 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Re: CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Dear Mr. Armstrong: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and withdraws the compliance order issued to Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains). Therefore, this case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS Mr. Troy E. Valenzuela, Vice President, Environmental, Health, & Safety 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ____________________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) Plains Pipeline, L.P., ) CPF No. 4-2015-5025 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER On multiple occasions between April 2014 and October 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Plains or Respondent) for Plains’ Jal, New Mexico to Wink, Texas pipeline construction project (Project). Respondent is engaged in the transport and storage of crude oil and natural gas in the United States and Canada, with more than 19,000 miles of pipeline and 135 million barrels of storage capacity.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated October 29, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Plains had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214 and 195.222 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Plains responded to the Notice by letter dated December 2, 2015 (Response). The company contested the allegations by offering additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the Notice be withdrawn. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDINGS OF VIOLATION The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214, which states, in relevant part: 1 Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., website, available at https://www.plainsallamerican.com/what-we-do (last accessed July 7, 2016).#

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Page 2 § 195.214 Welding Procedures (a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section 5, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify welding procedures must be determined by destructive testing. API Standard 1104 provides, in relevant part: 5.1 PROCEDURE QUALIFICTION Before production welding is started, a detailed procedure specification shall be established and qualified to demonstrate that welds with suitable mechanical properties (such as strength, ductility, and hardness) and soundness can be made by the procedure. The quality of the welds shall be determined by destructive testing. These procedures shall be adhered to except where a change is specifically authorized by the company, as provided for in 5.4. . . . . 5.4.1 General A welding procedure must be re-established as a new procedure specification and must be completely requalified when any of the essential variables listed in 5.4.2 are changed. . . . 5.4.2.2 Base Material A change in base material constitutes an essential variable. When welding materials of two separate material groups, the procedure for the higher strength group shall be used. For the purposes of this standard, all materials shall be grouped as follows: a. Specified minimum yield strength less than or equal to 42,000 psi (290 MPa). b. Specified minimum yield strength greater than 42,000 psi (290 MPa) but less than 65,000 psi (448 MPa). c. For materials with a specified minimum yield strength greater than or equal to 65,000 psi (448 MPa), each grade shall receive a separate qualification test. (Emphasis added). The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds on the Project without having a properly-qualified welding procedure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, during the inspection, PHMSA requested the welding procedure used to construct the pipeline in the Project and copies of the welder qualification records. The Notice alleged that#

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Page 3 Plains initially provided Welding Procedure Specification CS-G60L2032 as the welding procedure used in the Project. Welding procedure CS-G60L203 specified a range of base materials from API 5L X46 through API 5L X60. The Notice alleged that welders on the Project had been qualified using API 5L X42 material, which is outside of the range of base materials specified by procedure CS-G60L203. The Welder Qualification Records3 for the Project, attached as exhibits to PHMSA’s Pipeline Violation Safety Report dated October 29, 2015 (Violation Report), showed the use of “X42” grade pipe. Accordingly, PHMSA alleged that Plains’ welders had performed qualification tests using a grade of material, API 5L X42, that was not specified by the welding procedure. After PHMSA identified the above-described issue to Plains, Plains responded by stating that it had not provided the correct welding procedure to PHMSA. The Notice alleged that Plains subsequently provided a second procedure, Welding Procedure Specification CS-G4265L205, as the procedure used for pipeline construction in the Project. CS-G4265L205 specified a range of three base materials from API 5L X42 through API 5L X65, which encompassed the API 5L X42 base material that Plains used to qualify welders for the Project. Procedure CS-G4265L205 spans three groups of base materials under API Standard 1104, Section 5.4.2.2. The Notice alleged that Plains use of procedure CS-G4265L205 raised a new issue under 49 C.F.R. § 195.214. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Plains was required to qualify separate welding procedures for each of the three groups of base material encompassed by the range of base materials included in CS-G4265L205. In its Response, Plains contested the allegations in the Notice by offering new factual arguments. First, Plains offered a third explanation of the welding procedures used in pipeline construction on the Project. Specifically, Respondent explained that it had not used CS-G4265L205 to qualify welders on the Project. Rather, Respondent claimed that it actually used two welding procedures: the initially-claimed CS-G60L203 and another procedure, CS-F52M214, which specified a base material of API 5L X52. Respondent further claimed that CS-G4265L205 “was a legacy procedure” that “was never used” for the Project. The evidence presented by Respondent in response to the Notice is sufficient to indicate that Plains used welding procedures CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214 during construction of the Project. However, neither CS-G60L203 nor CS-F52M214 encompass API 5L X42 base material. Thus, the documented use of API 5L X42 base material to qualify welders on the Project was, by definition, outside of the base material range specified by the two welding procedures claimed in the Response. Second, Respondent claimed that welders who performed the welding on the Project were actually qualified using API 5L X52 material, not the API 5L X42 base material indicated on Plains’ Welder Qualification Records. The only evidence offered in support of Respondent’s claim consisted of an email exchange, dated November 10, 2015, which claimed that Plains “did 2 The Notice states that Plains initially provided welding procedure CS-G4265L203. However, all other documents provided as a part of the case file, including a copy of the procedure in question, label the procedure as CS-G60L203. 3 Violation Report, at 27.#

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Page 4 not have any X42 at the yard as we normally purchase X52.”4 However, the Welder Qualification Records clearly show that API 5L X42 material was used for welder qualification. The email does not provide any proof that API 5L X52 was used at the time welders were qualified for the Project; it merely states that Plains “normally purchase[s] X52” material. Respondent further alleged that “PHMSA . . . confirmed the grade of pipe used for qualifying welders” in a July 2015 field inspection, during which a PHMSA inspector physically examined pipe sections allegedly used to qualify welders during for the Project. However, Respondent’s assertion about the PHMSA inspector’s alleged observation of API 5L X52 material does not prove that API 5L X52 material was actually used to qualify welders for the Project. Welding procedure CS-G60L203 specified a range of base materials from API 5L X46 through API 5L X60, while welding procedure CS-F52M214 specified the use of API 5L X52 material. Welders for the Project were qualified using API 5L X42 material, as evidenced by the Welder Qualification Records for the Project. API 5L X42 material is outside of the range of base materials specified by procedures CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214. Therefore, Plains’ welders performed qualification tests using a grade of material not specified by the welding procedure, in violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) and API Standard 1104. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.214(a) by performing welds on the Project without having a properly-qualified welding procedure. Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a), which states in relevant part: § 195.222 Welders and welding operators: Qualifications of welders and welding operators. (a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section 6, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), or section IX of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), (incorporated by reference, see §195.3), except that a welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition than an edition listed in §195.3, may weld but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition. As cited above in Item 1, API Standard 1104 provides, in relevant part: 5.4.2.2 Base Material A change in base material constitutes an essential variable. When welding materials of two separate material groups, the procedure for the higher strength group shall be used. For the purposes of this standard, all materials shall be grouped as follows: a. . . . . c. For materials with a specified minimum yield strength greater than 4 Response, Attachment 1.#

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Page 5 or equal to 65,000 psi (448 MPa), each grade shall receive a separate qualification test. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to properly qualify welders that performed welding on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, during the inspection, PHMSA requested the welding procedure used to construct the pipeline in the Project and copies of the welder qualification records. The Notice alleged that Plains provided Welding Procedure Specification CS-G60L203 as the welding procedure used to qualify welders during the Project. Welding procedure CS- G60L203 specified a range of base materials from API 5L X46 through API 5L X60. The Notice alleged that welders for the Project had been qualified using API 5L X42 material, which is outside of the range of base materials specified by procedure CS-G60L203. The Welder Qualification Records5 used to qualify welders, attached as exhibits to the Violation Report, showed the use of “X42” grade pipe. Accordingly, PHMSA alleged that Plains’ welders were not properly qualified because they were not welding to a previously-qualified procedure. As discussed under Item 1 above, Plains initially responded by stating that it had used Welding Procedure Specification CS-G4265L205. Subsequently, Plains alleged that it had actually used procedures CS-G60L203 and CS-F52M214. The evidence presented by Respondent in response to the Notice is sufficient to indicate that Plains used welding procedures CS-G60L203 and CS- F52M214 during construction of the Project. As discussed above, neither CS-G60L203 nor CS-F52M214 include API 5L X42 in their base material ranges. Plains offered only unsubstantiated evidence that welders on the Project had “actually qualified using X-52 pipe, not X-42.” In opposition to the arguments and allegations in the Response, the Welder Qualification Record contained in the Violation Report clearly indicates that API 5L X42 pipe was used to qualify welders on the Project.6 Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.222(a) by failing to qualify each welder on the Project in accordance with API Standard 1104. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.214(a) and 195.222(a), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Respondent has provided additional evidence in its Response, as follows: COMPLIANCE ORDER 5 Violation Report, at 27. 6 Violation Report, at 27.#

420155025_Final Order_12272016_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 4-2015-5025 Page 6 Respondent provided sufficient proof that welding procedure CS-G4265L205 was not used in construction-related welding work on Plains’ Jal, New Mexico to Wink, Texas pipeline construction project, contrary to the allegations in the Notice suggesting that procedure CS-G4265L205 was used. Accordingly, I find that compliance with respect to these violations cannot be achieved by implementing the remedial actions contained in the proposed compliance order, which pertains to Respondent’s alleged use of procedure CS-G4265L205. Accordingly, the proposed compliance terms contained in the Notice are not included in this Order. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. December 27, 2016 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#