{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420165005","title":"ROSE ROCK MIDSTREAM OPERATING, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-03-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.404(a), 195.406(b), 195.428(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420165005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ROSE ROCK MIDSTREAM OPERATING, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.404(a),  195.406(b),  195.428(a). The case was opened on 2016-03-29 and is reported as closed as of 2017-03-21. Proposed civil penalty: $600,200. Assessed civil penalty: $600,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420165005_Final Order_03022017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165005/420165005_Final%20Order_03022017.pdf\n\n420165005_Final Order_03022017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165005/420165005_Final%20Order_03022017_text.pdf\n\n420165005_NOPV PCP_03292016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165005/420165005_NOPV%20PCP_03292016.pdf\n\n420165005_NOPV PCP_03292016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165005/420165005_NOPV%20PCP_03292016_text.pdf\n\n420165005_Operator Response to Notice_04282016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165005/420165005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04282016.pdf\n\n420165005_Final Order_03022017_text.pdf\n\nMarch 2, 2017\nMr. Carlin G. Conner\nPresident and Chief Executive Officer\nSemGroup Corporation\n6120 South Yale Ave., Suite 700\nTulsa, OK 74136\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-5005\nDear Mr. Conner:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $600,200 against Rose Rock Midstream, LP, a\nsubsidiary limited partnership of SemGroup Corporation. The penalty payment terms are set\nforth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment.\nService of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as\notherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, OPS\nMr. Peter L. Schwiering, Chief Operating Officer, Rose Rock Midstream, LP\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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nRose Rock Midstream, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5005\na subsidiary limited partnership of )\nSemGroup Corporation, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nPursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an investigation of an\naccident involving the pipeline system operated by Rose Rock Midstream, LP (Rose Rock or\nRespondent) southeast of Blackwell, Oklahoma. Rose Rock owns and operates more than 1,900\nmiles of crude oil pipeline and 10.1 million barrels of crude oil storage.1 Rose Rock is a\nsubsidiary limited partnership of SemGroup Corporation (SemGroup).2\nThe investigation arose out of an April 2, 2014 crude oil release (Accident) from Rose Rock’s\neight-inch crude-oil pipeline running from Blackwell to See, southeast of Blackwell, Oklahoma\n(Affected Line). On April 2, 2014, Rose Rock notified the National Response Center (NRC) of a\nrelease of approximately 160 barrels of crude oil from the Affected Line. The Accident resulted\nfrom the use of locks that were not recognized by Respondent’s Maintenance Supervisor, during\nmaintenance work and replacement of a segment of the Affected Line. Accordingly, the\nMaintenance Supervisor overseeing the maintenance and replacement work did not confirm the\noperating status of a closed valve. When Rose Rock attempted to restart the system against the\nclosed valve, the Affected Line experienced an overpressure and ruptured.\nAs a result of the investigation, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 29, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRose Rock had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and proposed assessing a\n1 Rose Rock Midstream, LP, website, available at http://www.semgroupcorp.com/Operations/RoseRock.aspx (last\naccessed November 16, 2016).\n2 SemGroup Corporation, website, available at http://ir.semgroupcorp.com/our-two-companies/default.aspx (last\naccessed November 16, 2016).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5005\nPage 2\ncivil penalty of $600,200 for the alleged violations.\nRose Rock responded to the Notice by letter dated April 28, 2016 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegations of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Rose Rock did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\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. …\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to follow its\nLockout/Tagout (LOTO) Standard procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Rose Rock\nfailed to follow Chapter 26, Lockout/Tagout System, Section 4.b. of SemGroup’s procedures,\nwhich states: “The locks/tags shall be standardized throughout the facility and are the only\nauthorized method used for lockout/tagout of energy sources. These locks and tags shall not be\nused for any purpose other than equipment isolation.”3 The Notice also alleged that Rose Rock\nfailed to follow Chapter 26, Responsibilities, Section 6 of SemGroup’s procedures, which states:\n“Supervisors shall ensure that this standard is implemented and enforced. When required, the\ncorporate environment, health and safety department will provide technical assistance.”\nThe Notice alleged that Rose Rock’s technician responsible for LOTO of the Affected Line did\nnot use the locks authorized and standardized by Section 4.b. of SemGroup’s procedures. As a\nresult, during the restart of the Affected Line, the Maintenance Supervisor did not recognize the\nlock and did not confirm the operating status of a valve. The Maintenance Supervisor’s failure\nto follow Section 6 of SemGroup’s procedures also contributed to the improper LOTO actions.\nWhen the Affected Line was restarted against the closed valve, an overpressure occurred and\ncaused the Accident. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by\nfailing to follow its LOTO Standard procedures.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n3 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 15, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 4-5.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5005\nPage 3\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7 1∕2 months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\nits pressure transmitters. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Rose Rock failed to comply with\nthe 15-month inspection interval required by 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) The 15-month inspection\nand test interval is also required by SemGroup’s Operations, Maintenance and Emergencies\nManual (OME Manual), Section 3.1 Overpressure Protection Procedure. The Notice further\nalleged that Rose Rock did not have any records for any prior inspection of the pressure\ntransmitter located at Blackwell Junction station on the Affected Line. On April 2, 2014, the\ndate of the Accident, the pressure transmitter was inoperable. Rose Rock indicated that the\npressure transmitter was out of calibration, which caused the failure of the transmitter. As a\nresult, no pressure alarm was received by Rose Rock’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition\n(SCADA) system to indicate that an overpressure was occurring in the Affected Line.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and\ntest its pressure transmitters at appropriate intervals. This violation is a repeat violation of CPF\n3-2013-5028, Item 3.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) …\n(b) No operator may permit the pressure in a pipeline during surges or\nother variations from normal operations to exceed 110 percent of the\noperating pressure limit established under paragraph (a) of this section.\nEach operator must provide adequate controls and protective equipment to\ncontrol the pressure within this limit.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by failing to provide\nadequate controls and protective equipment to prevent the pressure in the Affected Line from\nexceeding 110% of its operating pressure limit. The Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP) of the\nAffected Line is 780 psig. Specifically, the Notice alleged that when Rose Rock attempted to\nrestart the Affected Line on April 2, 2014, the pressure reached 1160 psig, more than 110% of\n780 psig, before rupturing and causing the Accident. Rose Rock did not have adequate controls\nor protective equipment to prevent the pressure in the Affected Line from exceeding 110% MOP.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5005\nPage 4\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b) by failing to provide\nadequate controls and protective equipment to prevent the pressure in the Affected Line from\nexceeding 110% of its operating pressure limit. This violation is a repeat violation of CPF\n3-2013-5028, Item 2.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(1) …\n(4) The diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a) by failing to maintain\ncomplete records demonstrating the grade of the pipe used in the Affected Line. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Rose Rock initially provided PHMSA with a copy of form DOT 7100.2 that\nindicated the Affected Line was constructed with Grade B pipeline with a wall thickness of 0.250\ninches and a specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of 35,000 psi. PHMSA requested\ndocumentation supporting the indicated pipe grade used in the Affected Line. Following\nPHMSA’s requests, Rose Rock changed the indication on form DOT 7100.2 to show a SMYS of\n24,000 psi. Rose Rock was unable to provide records supporting the 35,000 SMYS initially\nasserted to PHMSA. Rose Rock had established the operating pressure (MOP) of the Affected\nLine using the 35,000 psi SMYS. Accordingly, Respondent was operating the Affected Line\nwith an MOP established using an unconfirmed or unsupported grade of pipe. Respondent did\nnot contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence,\nI find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a) by failing to maintain complete records\ndemonstrating the grade of pipe used in construction of its pipeline.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken 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.4 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under\n49 U.S.C. § 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\n4 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5005\nPage 5\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 $600,200 for the violations cited in Items 1, 2, and 3, above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $164,100 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), for failing to follow its LOTO Standard procedures. In its response,\nRespondent requested a reduction in the amount of the proposed penalty under two arguments.\nFirst, Respondent argued that Rose Rock made a good-faith effort to comply with the regulation.\nRespondent made no argument as to how Rose Rock’s failure to follow its LOTO Standard\nprocedures constituted a “credible justification for its actions or lack of actions.” Rather,\nRespondent’s “good faith” argument suggested that Rose Rock’s level of culpability for the\nviolation was less than that asserted in the Violation Report. Specifically, Respondent argued\nthat Rose Rock “found the noncompliance, [and] took documented action to address the cause,”\nwhereas PHMSA alleged that Rose Rock “failed to take appropriate action to comply with a\nrequirement that was clearly applicable.”5 Respondent cites several post-Accident corrective\nactions taken to address Rose Rock’s failure to follow its LOTO Standard procedures.\nWith regard to the first argument, Respondent does not contest the allegation that Rose Rock\nfailed to take appropriate action to comply with its LOTO Standard procedures on the day of the\nAccident, a clearly-applicable requirement under 49 C.F.R. § 195.402 that was a causal factor of\nthe Accident. The post-Accident corrective actions undertaken by Rose Rock, after the\nCompany had already committed the violation, to prevent a recurrence of the violation do not\nconstitute actions that warrant reducing the penalty.6 Accordingly, I find no reason to reduce the\npenalty under this argument.\nSecond, Respondent argued that Rose Rock “discovered, reported and corrected the violation\nbefore PHMSA learned of it,” whereas the Violation Report alleged that PHMSA discovered the\nviolation.7 In its required Accident Report, Form PHMSA F 7000.1 (Accident Report), dated\nMay 1, 2014, Rose Rock did note that “LO/TO procedure was not followed.” Rose Rock’s\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 194.402(a) is not further addressed in the Accident Report or any other\npre-Notice filing from Respondent. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.54, “[e]ach operator that\nexperiences an accident that is required to be reported under § 195.50 must, as soon as\npracticable, but not later than 30 days after discovery of the accident, file an accident report on\nDOT Form 7000-1.” Thus, Rose Rock was required to submit the Accident Report within 30\ndays of the Accident. It can hardly be argued that Rose Rock should be given credit for self-\nreporting a violation when that report consists of a single isolated mention in a 13-page Accident\nReport that Respondent was required, by regulation, to file after an accident caused by that same\nviolation.\n5 Violation Report, at 10.\n6 See, e.g., Florida Gas Transmission Co., CPF No. 4-2013-1019, 2015 WL 9943167, at *5 (Dec. 14, 2015) (finding\nthat actions to remediate a violation after the violation was already discovered does not warrant reducing the penalty\nbecause the operator already had an affirmative duty to correct known compliance issues).\n7 Violation Report, at 8.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5005\nPage 6\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $164,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $236,100 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test its pressure transmitters. In its Response,\nRespondent requested a reduction in the amount of the proposed penalty under two arguments.\nFirst, Respondent argues that the Violation Report inaccurately states the violation occurred over\n“[a] number of years” between the installation of the pressure transmitter in 2010 or 2011 and the\ndiscovery of the violation in 2014. Respondent notes that the Affected Line did not become\nPHMSA-jurisdictional until February 7, 2013, approximately 14 months prior to the Accident,\nwhich would indicate that Rose Rock missed only a single required inspection during calendar-\nyear 2013.\nWith regard to the first argument, the Violation Report inaccurately stated that Rose Rock was in\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) for “[a] number of years.” Because the Affected Line only\nbecame PHMSA-jurisdictional in February 2013, the first inspection and test of the pressure\ntransmitters at issue in this Item was not due until the end of calendar-year 2013. Accordingly,\nthe duration of Rose Rock’s violation was approximately three months from December 31, 2013,\nto April 2, 2014. However, the proposed civil penalty assessed in Item 2 of the Notice was\ncalculated based on a duration of only ten days.8 Thus, correcting the above-mentioned\ninaccuracy in the Violation Report does not support a reduction in the proposed civil penalty.\nSecond, Respondent argues that Rose Rock discovered, reported, and corrected the violation\nbefore PHMSA learned of it. While Rose Rock may have discovered and corrected the violation\nbefore PHMSA’s inspection, Respondent provides no support for its assertion that Rose Rock\nreported the violation. The Accident Report contains no mention of the missed pressure\ntransmitter inspection. Thus, I find no reason to reduce the penalty under this argument. Lastly,\nRespondent summarily asserts, but provides no support for, Rose Rock’s supposed “good faith”\nin the instant violation. No aspect of the record supports a finding of good faith.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $236,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $200,000 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b), for failing to provide adequate controls and protective equipment to\nprevent the pressure in the Affected Line from exceeding 110% of its operating pressure limit.\nIn its response, Respondent requested a reduction in the amount of the proposed penalty under\ntwo arguments. First, Respondent argued that the violation described in Item 3 was “arguably\nduplicative of Items 1 and 2.” Respondent provided no support for that assertion. Item 1\naddresses Rose Rock’s failure to follow LOTO Standard Procedures, Item 2 addresses Rose\nRock’s failure to inspect and test pressure transmitters, and the instant violation addresses Rose\nRock’s failure to provide adequate protections to prevent the Affected Line from exceeding\n110% of its operating pressure limit. All three violations are alleged under wholly-separate\n8 Proposed Civil Penalty Worksheet (March 11, 2016), on file with PHMSA, at 2. Where an exact duration of\nviolation cannot be determined but evidence suggests a duration of 10 or more days, the proposed civil penalty is\ncalculated using an estimate of 10 days. Id.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5005\nPage 7\nsections of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and address three distinct failures on the part of Rose Rock. The\nonly unifying aspect of the three violations is their common connection to the Accident. I find\nno reason to reduce the penalty under this argument.\nSecond, Respondent argues that Rose Rock discovered, reported, and corrected the violation\nbefore PHMSA learned of it. While Rose Rock may have discovered and corrected the violation\nbefore PHMSA’s inspection, Respondent provides no support for its assertion that Rose Rock\nreported the violation. The Accident Report contains no mention of Rose Rock’s failure to\nprovide adequate controls and protective equipment to prevent the pressure in the Affected Line\nfrom exceeding 110% of its operating pressure limit. Thus, I find no reason to reduce the\npenalty under this argument.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $200,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(b).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $600,200.\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\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $600,200 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.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 4, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain\ncomplete records demonstrating the grade of the pipe used in the Affected Line.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5005\nPage 8\nRose Rock requested withdrawal of the warning item, based on the fact that the Affected Line\nwas not considered PHMSA-jurisdictional until 2013. PHMSA does not adjudicate warning\nitems to determine whether a probable violation occurred.9 Rose Rock presented information in\nits preliminary responses to PHMSA inquiries showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has the 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 the 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 but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMarch 2, 2017\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n9 § 190.205.","truncated":false,"body_characters":25377}