{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420175027","title":"EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-08-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.452(j)(2), 195.505, 195.571, 195.573(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175027.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175027.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420175027","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420175027","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.452(j)(2),  195.505,  195.571,  195.573(c). The case was opened on 2017-08-11 and is reported as closed as of 2019-04-19. Proposed civil penalty: $203,400. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420175027_Final Order_04032019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_Final%20Order_04032019.pdf\n\n420175027_Final Order_04032019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_Final%20Order_04032019_text.pdf\n\n420175027_NOPV PCP_08112017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_NOPV%20PCP_08112017.pdf\n\n420175027_NOPV PCP_08112017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_NOPV%20PCP_08112017_text.pdf\n\n420175027_Operator Post Hearing Submission_Second Amended and Restated Statement of Isssues_06142018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_Operator%20Post%20Hearing%20Submission_Second%20Amended%20and%20Restated%20Statement%20of%20Isssues_06142018.pdf\n\n420175027_Operator Post-Hearing Brief_06142018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Brief_06142018.pdf\n\n420175027_Operator Response to Notice and Request For Hearing_10192017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20For%20Hearing_10192017.pdf\n\n420175027_Operator_Pre-Hearing_Submissions_05042018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_Operator_Pre-Hearing_Submissions_05042018.pdf\n\n420175027_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_03302018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_03302018.pdf\n\n420175027_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_03302018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_03302018_text.pdf\n\n420175027_PHC Hearing Scheduled_02132018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_02132018.pdf\n\n420175027_PHC Hearing Scheduled_02132018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_02132018_text.pdf\n\n420175027_Final Order_04032019_text.pdf\n\nApril 3, 2019\nMr. Richard Byrne\nGeneral Counsel\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n22777 Springwoods Village Parkway\nEnergy 3 5A.491\nSpring, TX 77389-2170\nRe: CPF No. 4-2017-5027\nDear Mr. Byrne:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nallegations of violation. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of\nmailing as 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: Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Johnnie R. Randolph, Jr., Counsel, Exxon Mobil Corporation\nMr. Vince Murchison, Murchison Law Firm, PLLC, 325 North St. Paul Street, Suite\n2700, Dallas, TX 75201\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 )\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2017-5027\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom March 2013 through February 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and records of ExxonMobil\nPipeline Company (Exxon or Respondent), in Woodlands, Texas. Exxon and its affiliates\ntransport 2.8 million barrels of crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gases,\nnatural gas liquids, and chemical feedstocks through approximately 8,000 miles of pipeline in 10\nstates and the Gulf of Mexico,1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 11, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nExxon committed a number of violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $203,400 for the alleged violations.\nExxon responded to the Notice by letter dated October 19, 2017 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on May 14,\n2018, in Houston, TX, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA. At\nthe hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing, Respondent provided a\npost-hearing statement for the record, by letter dated June 14, 2018 (Closing). In addition, the\nRespondent also submitted a response to the Region Recommendation for the record, by letter\ndated July 6, 2018 (Response to the Region Recommendation).\n1 https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/worldwide-operations/locations/united-states/pipeline-\noperations/overview (last accessed November 29, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.505 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified;\n(c) Allow individuals that are not qualified pursuant to this subpart to\nperform a covered task if directed and observed by an individual that\nis qualified;\n(d) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the\nindividual's performance of a covered task contributed to an accident as\ndefined in Part 195;\n(e) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe that the\nindividual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;\n(f) Communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals\nperforming those covered tasks;\n(g) Identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the\nindividual's qualifications is needed;\n(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency\nparticipating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly\nmodifies the program after the administrator or state agency has verified that\nit complies with this section. Notifications to PHMSA may be submitted by\nelectronic mail to InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov, or by mail to\nATTN: Information Resources Manager DOT/PHMSA/OPS, East Building,\n2nd Floor, E22-321, New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505 by failing to follow their\nwritten qualification program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Exxon failed to follow its\nown qualification program that required requalification of a Cathodic Protection technician (CP\ntechnician) following a July 2012 failure to properly install a cathodic protection rectifier. The\nprocedure, Qualification of Pipeline Personnel (October 2012) (the procedure),2 states, in\nrelevant part:\n4.3.3 Re-qualification\nEMPCo’s Written Program identifies the circumstances in which individuals need to be\nre-qualified. Personnel will be re-evaluated and re-qualified prior to performing the\ncovered task when any of the following circumstances occur (49 CFR 195.505 or\n192.805):\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report)), (August 11, 2017) (on file with PHMSA), at Exhibit A.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 3\n3) Reason to believe an employee is no longer able to perform or displays\nunsatisfactory performance: If an individual’s performance is identified to be\nunsatisfactory, regardless of whether it has resulted in an incident, the individual must be\nre-qualified prior to further performance of the covered task. An individual’s\nperformance may be determined to be unsatisfactory during an incident investigation,\nobservations by Supervisors, or other qualified individuals, or a near-miss occurrence.\nBefore attempting to re-qualify an employee, the Supervisor should consider and\ndocument any of the following that are completed:\n Reviewing the applicable policy and procedure(s) with the individual\n Assigning a qualified individual to work with the individual\n Identifying applicable training for the individual\nAt the hearing, Exxon argued that OPS failed to prove that it violated the procedure. First, the\nRespondent argued that it abided by the language in the procedure and was not required to\nrequalify the CP technician given that requalification is only required prior to further\nperformance of the covered task.\nAlternatively, Exxon contended that, even if it was required to requalify the CP technician per\nthe procedure, the CP technician was requalified on October 16, 2012, after the display of\nunsatisfactory performance in July 2012 and prior to identification of the error in January 2013.\nTherefore, the terms of the procedural requirement were met as of October 16, 2012.\nThe Region contended that Exxon could only requalify the CP technician following discovery of\nthe mistake in January 2013 (emphasis added). According to OPS, Exxon could not requalify\nthe CP technician prior to identifying the error. Therefore, the October 16, 2012 qualification\ndid not count as a requalification, even though the practical result of a further qualification (or\nrequalification) would have resulted in the CP technician repeating the same testing module.\nOPS pointed out that Exxon chose to requalify the CP technician in May 2013 following the\ninspection, after investigators pointed out the failure to requalify. During the hearing, OPS\nargued that this fact establishes that, as of January 2013, Exxon also believed it was required to\nrequalify. 3\n3 Informal Hearing Transcript Excerpt:\n“Mr. Murchison (Exxon): Well, is there anything in the case file that shows us that unsatisfactory performance was\ndetermined?\nMs. McDaniel (OPS): To me, yes. Hooking it up incorrectly would be unsatisfactory performance. And when it\nwas brought to ExxonMobil’s attention in May of 2013, he was immediately requalified. So, ExxonMobil must\nhave felt the same thing; otherwise, why would he be requalified if he was on a three-year requalification – or five-\nyear requalification time period. I mean, to me that sort of falls in line to where, based off of my comment, which is\nsort of what they said here; after being questioned by PHMSA staff during the inspection, EMPCo was requalified.\nSo, based off that.\nMr. Randolph (Exxon): Okay. So—but that pursuant to the procedure, when its determined that his performance\nwas unsatisfactory is when the requirement kicks in.\nMs. McDaniel (OPS): Right. So, January of 2013….\nMr. Randolph (Exxon): So a violation of this element could not start until January of 2013, once unsatisfactory\nperformance was determined?\nMr. Matthews (OPS): Yes, I think we’d be willing to concede that, yes.”\n(Informal Hearing Tr. 107-108, May 14, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 4\nAnalysis\nThe October qualification cannot count as a requalification because the procedure also requires\nthat “(b)efore attempting to re-qualify an employee the supervisor consider and document that”\nthey reviewed the policy with the individual, assigned a qualified individual to work with the\nindividual, or identified applicable training for the individual. There is no evidence that Exxon\ndid this prior to the October 16, 2012 qualification. Therefore, this cannot credibly be\nconsidered a requalification following a display of unsatisfactory performance.\nHowever, I agree with the Respondent that, in order to prove that it violated the procedure, OPS\nmust establish that the CP technician performed the task again prior to requalification. The\nprocedure states that “individuals need to be re-qualified … prior to performing the covered task\nwhen any of the following circumstances occur (49 CFR 195.505 or 192.805): . . . if an\nindividual’s performance is identified to be unsatisfactory . . .the individual must be re-\nrequalified prior to further performance of the covered task.”\nCritically, the procedure only requires requalification “prior to further performance of the\ncovered task.” There is nothing in the Violation Report to suggest that OPS inquired or collected\nevidence establishing that the CP technician continued to perform the covered task. OPS\nconceded this point.4 Both parties acknowledged that CP technicians perform duties that do not\ninclude this covered task. It is OPS’ burden to prove that the CP technician continued to perform\nthis task – not the Respondent’s burden to prove that he did not. Therefore, OPS has not\nestablished that Exxon failed to follow the procedure.\nAccordingly, after considering all the evidence, I find that OPS did not present evidence proving\nthat the operator failed to follow the procedure. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that\nItem 1 be withdrawn.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states:\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper\nperformance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the\nsecond column.\n4 Mr. Murchison (Exxon): Where in the case file, the NOPV, the violation report, the exhibits to the violation\nreport is … the evidence that the gentleman, Kevin Hollingsworth covered this particular task --… prior to being\nrequalified?\nMs. McDaniel (OPS): I’m not saying performed. I don’t have evidence to show he performed the covered task.\nBut he was not removed from his position as a CP technician doing this stuff … I do not have evidence in here that\nshows that he installed another rectifier at that time.\n(Informal Hearing Tr. 111-112, May 14, 2018).Mr. Phillips (OPS): No, I’m asking if the employee did the covered\ntask.\nMr. Murchison (Exxon Counsel): The burden is yours, sir. Do you have any evidence?\nMr. Phillips (OPS): And I’m asking. And if you don’t have it, that’s fine.\n(Informal Hearing Tr. 134, May 14, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 5\nDevice Check frequency\nRectifier\nAt least six times each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not\nexceeding 2 ½ months.\nReverse current switch\nDiode\nInterface bond whose failure would\njeopardize structural protection\nOther interface bond\nAt least once each calendar year but\nwith intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573 by failing to electrically check\nthe performance of a newly installed rectifier at the required frequencies. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Exxon failed to perform electric checks for six months after the improper\ninstallation of a rectifier.\nAt the hearing, the Region acknowledged that the NOPV was based on a misunderstanding of the\nfacts in evidence and withdrew the allegation of violation.\nBased upon the foregoing, I hereby order that the item be withdrawn.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571, which states:\n§ 195.571 What criteria must I use to determine the adequacy of cathodic\nprotection?\nCathodic protection required by this subpart must comply with one or more\nof the applicable criteria and other considerations for cathodic protection\ncontained paragraphs 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5 and 6.3 in NACE SP 0169\n(incorporated by reference, see §195.3).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.571 by failing to maintain the\ncathodic protection required by NACE SP 0169. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the\nRespondent could not have met one of the required cathodic protection criterion required by the\nregulation given that there was a reverse rectifier connection in place.\nAt the hearing, Exxon argued that the Region failed to establish that it failed to comply with any\nof the applicable criteria for cathodic protection in NACE SP 0169. The Respondent introduced\nan expert in cathodic protection, Mr. Kevin Garrity, P.E. At the hearing, both sides debated\nwhether § 195.571 requires adequate cathodic protection and, if not, whether OPS produced\nsufficient evidence to establish a violation of this regulation. Mr. Garrity testified that § 195.571\nrequires only that the cathodic protection meet the requirement of SP 0169, which includes three\nmeasurement criteria. For each criteria, Mr. Garrity stated that there was no evidence in the\nrecord to demonstrate that the reverse connection on the rectifier changed the polarity of the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 6\ncathodic protection measurement under those three criteria. In fact, the expert testified that the\nonly evidence in the record5 demonstrated that there were no significant external metal loss\nanomalies in the area of the reversed rectifier. While the metal loss report found approximately\none-hundred anomalies over the entire 49 mile ILI run, the two most significant anomalies (63\npercent deep) were found 30-miles away from the reversed rectifier – squarely outside of the\nrectifier’s area of influence. Given the lack of external metal loss in the area, in Mr. Garrity’s\nexpert opinion, the reversed rectifier did not compromise adequate cathodic protection on the\npipeline.\nOPS acknowledged that there was no evidence in the record that the incorrectly installed rectifier\nresulted in a charge on the pipeline. However, OPS argued that the evidence in the record,\nnamely the ILI tool run, was not the correct tool to adequately evaluate corrosion.6\nAnalysis\nThere is no evidence in the record that this pipeline did not have adequate cathodic protection.\nWhile the reversed rectifier connection could have put current onto the pipeline that negated the\narea of influence of the other rectifiers, neither the ILI data nor the pipe-to-soil readings support\nthat supposition. The ILI data and the pipe-to-soil readings are the only evidence of the current\non the pipeline.\nExperts for OPS and Exxon proffered conflicting testimony. The Regional Director testified that\n“it would be almost impossible to have adequate cathodic protection in that area.”7 Exxon’s\nexpert testified that he had personally observed situations where a single rectifier wired in\nreverse polarity was compensated for by other rectifiers. In its post-hearing recommendation,\nOPS stated “basic cathodic protection and engineering principles would clearly call into question\nthe adequacy of cathodic protection for an area of pipe that was influenced by an incorrectly\ninstalled rectifier.”8 I agree that OPS called into question the adequacy of the cathodic protection\nat or near the reversed rectifier, but it has no supporting evidence. Contrary to the Regional\nRecommendation, the Respondent is not required to “rule[d] out as being possible that the area\n5 Exxon ran an in-line inspection tool through the pipeline. In the opinion of Mr. Garrity, if the cathodic protection\nwas inadequate, “coincident metal loss anomalies” would have been observed (Page 196).\n(Informal Hearing Tr. 196, May 14, 2018).\n6 Informal Hearing Excerpt:\nMs. McDaniel (OPS): And I think maybe it I’m hearing you right, your conclusion is based off the lack of evidence\nto say that there was inadequate cathodic protection supported by your looking at the tool run; is that correct?...\nMr. Garrity: It’s a combination of that and also the fact that there was a rectifier half a mile away discharging\nalmost twice as much of the current of the Lake Washington rectifier.”\nMs. McDaniel (OPS): But it’s sort of in the same situation when I was asked the question; it’s supposition. We\ndon’t know. And I would think the same thing from you, wouldn’t we? Without any evidence, we don’t’ know.\nMr. Garrity (Exxon): Well, in my opinion, the tool data is very persuasive and it’s very conclusive. And I don’t\nwant to sound curt, but if we have a lack of evidence, in the absence of evidence, how is a speculation the basis for a\nviolation? Or the allegation of a violation?” (Informal Hearing Tr. 198-199, May 14, 2018).\n7 (Informal Hearing Tr. 151, May 14, 2018).\n8 Post Hearing Regional Recommendation, at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 7\ninfluenced by the rectifier did not meet the required criteria of -850mv.”9 The burden of proof is\non OPS to establish there was not adequate cathodic protection.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence I find that OPS has not met its burden of proof\nin establishing that there was not adequate cathodic protection on this pipeline. Based upon the\nforegoing, I hereby order that the Item be withdrawn.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered as a warning\nitem. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452 (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to continue to assess\nthe line pipe at specified intervals and periodically evaluate the integrity of each\npipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area.\nExxon requested withdrawal of Item 4, because OPS lacked data to substantiate the allegation\nthat cathodic protection adequacy was compromised. Under § 190.205, PHMSA does not\nadjudicate warning items to determine whether a probable violation occurred. If OPS finds a\nviolation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement action.\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.10 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 $203,400 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $63,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.505, for failing to follow their written qualification program. For the reasons discussed\nabove, I find that the Respondent did not violate this regulation. Based upon the foregoing, I\nwithdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.505.\n9 Post Hearing Regional Recommendation, at 3.\n10 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 8\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $75,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573, for failing to electrically check the performance of a newly installed rectifier at the\nrequired frequencies. For the reasons discussed above, I find that the Respondent did not violate\nthis regulation. Based upon the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.573.\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $63,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.571, for failing to maintain the cathodic protection required by NACE SP 0169. For the\nreasons discussed above, I find that the Respondent did not violate this regulation. Based upon\nthe foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.571.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nApril 3, 2019\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n420175027_PHC Hearing Scheduled_02132018_text.pdf\n\nFebruary 13, 2018\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL TO: Richard.E.Byrne@exxonmobil.com and\nMary.McDaniel@dot.gov\nMr. Richard E. Byrne\nGeneral Counsel\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n22777 Springwoods Village Pkwy\nSpring, TX 77389\nMs. Mary McDaniel\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n8701 South Gessner, Suite 630\nHouston, TX 77074\nRe: Notice of Hearing, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nDear Mr. Byrne and Ms. McDaniel:\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty issued by the Office of Pipeline Safety in the above-\nreferenced case. The hearing has been rescheduled and will take place on April 4, 2018, beginning\nat 9:00 a.m. Central Time.\nThe hearing will be at the PHMSA Southwest Region office, 8701 South Gessner, Suite 630,\nHouston, TX 77074. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present photo\nidentification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is\n(713) 272-2859.\nBoth parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at\nleast 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (March 25, 2018), along with a list of attendees, and the\nnames of any witnesses who may testify. You may provide this information electronically. If you\nhave any questions, please contact me at (202) 366-6139 or at kristin.baldwin@dot.gov.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 2\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.\nSincerely,\nKristin Baldwin\nPresiding Official\ncc (email): Mr. Adam Phillips, Counsel, Southwest Region, OPS\n\n420175027_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_03302018_text.pdf\n\nMarch 30, 2018\nVIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL TO: Johnnie.R.Randolph@exxonmobil.com and\nMary.McDaniel@dot.gov\nMr. Johnnie Randolph\nGeneral Counsel\nExxonMobil Pipeline Company\n22777 Springwoods Village Pkwy\nSpring, TX 77389\nMs. Mary McDaniel\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n8701 South Gessner, Suite 630\nHouston, TX 77074\nRe: Notice of Hearing, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nDear Mr. Randolph and Ms. McDaniel:\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of\nProbable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty issued by the Office of Pipeline Safety in the above-\nreferenced case. The hearing has been rescheduled and will take place on May 14, 2018, beginning\nat 9:00 a.m. Central Time.\nThe hearing will be at the PHMSA Southwest Region office, 8701 South Gessner, Suite 630,\nHouston, TX 77074. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present photo\nidentification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is\n(713) 272-2859.\nBoth parties must submit and exchange any additional written materials they intend to present at\nleast 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (March 25, 2018), along with a list of attendees, and the\nnames of any witnesses who may testify. You may provide this information electronically. If you\nhave any questions, please contact me at (202) 366-6139 or at kristin.baldwin@dot.gov.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2017-5027\nPage 2\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.\nSincerely,\nKristin Baldwin\nPresiding Official\ncc (email): Mr. Adam Phillips, Counsel, Southwest Region, OPS","truncated":false,"body_characters":28906}