{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420191012","title":"GOLDEN TRIANGLE STORAGE, INC. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2019-12-09","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.614(a), 192.614(c)(4), 192.616(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191012.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191012.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420191012","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420191012","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving GOLDEN TRIANGLE STORAGE, INC.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.614(a),  192.614(c)(4),  192.616(c). The case was opened on 2019-12-09 and is reported as closed as of 2020-10-22. Proposed civil penalty: $19,000. Assessed civil penalty: $19,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420191012_Closure Letter_10222020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191012/420191012_Closure%20Letter_10222020.pdf\n\n420191012_Closure Letter_10222020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191012/420191012_Closure%20Letter_10222020_text.pdf\n\n420191012_Final Order_07272020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191012/420191012_Final%20Order_07272020.pdf\n\n420191012_Final Order_07272020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191012/420191012_Final%20Order_07272020_text.pdf\n\n420191012_NOPV PCP PCO_12092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191012/420191012_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_12092019.pdf\n\n420191012_NOPV PCP PCO_12092019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191012/420191012_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_12092019_text.pdf\n\n420191012_Operator Response to Notice_01072020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420191012/420191012_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_01072020.pdf\n\n420191012_NOPV PCP PCO_12092019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nDecember 9, 2019\nKimberly S. Greene\nChairman and CEO\nSouthern Company Gas\n10 Peachtree Place\nAtlanta, Georgia 30309\nCPF 4-2019-1012\nDear Ms. Greene:\nFrom January 7 through June 22, 2019, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of\n49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected the facilities of your subsidiary, Golden Triangle\nStorage Inc., in Orange, Texas.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items inspected\nand the probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. § 192.614 Damage prevention program.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each operator of a\nburied pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section a written program to\nprevent damage to that pipeline from excavation activities. For the purpose of this\nsection, the term “excavation activities” includes excavation, blasting, boring,\ntunneling, backfilling, the removal of aboveground structures by either explosive or\nmechanical means, and other earth moving operations.\n(c) The damage prevention program required by paragraph (a) of this section must,\nat a minimum:\n(4) If the operator has buried pipelines in the area of excavation activity, provide for\nactual notification of persons who give notice of their intent to excavate of the type of\ntemporary marking to be provided and how to identify the markings.\nGolden Triangle Storage, Inc. (GTS) failed to follow three provisions of its written Damage\nPrevention Plan (DPP). GTS failed to follow section 3.3.1(D) of the DPP, which requires\nthe GTS mark its pipeline within two working days (48 hours) after receiving a pipeline\nlocate request. GTS’s received two pipeline locate tickets, numberd 1882417960 and\n1882418774, on November 20, 2018, for work intended to commence on November 26,\n2018. GTS was required by its procedures to mark its pipeline no later than Nevember 22,\nhowever, GTS did not mark its pipeline until November 27, 2018.\nGTS failed to follow sections 3.15.5(6) and 3.2.2 (c) of its written DPP by failing to provide\na positive response on the status of requested pipeline locate tickets. Ticket numbers\n1885505008, 1880846697, 1880846658, and 1950152951 do not show or indicate that any\npositive response on the status of pipeline locate requests were sent to either the One Call\nCenter or the party requesting the marking of the pipelines in the area of the planned\nexcavation activity.\nGTS also failed to follow its written DPP section 3.2.2 (e) which requires that appropriate\nrecords be maintained if a notice is requested and completed. All the records provided\nduring the PHMSA inspection were incomplete, with missing dates when they were\nmarked/cleared, descriptions of what activities were carried out to close the tickets, and no\nindication of whether any positive responses were sent.\n2. § 192.616 Public Awareness\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations, including\nbaseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator\nprovides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with\nall or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not\nnecessary for safety.\nGTS failed to follow the general program recommendations of API RP 1162 as required\nby § 192.616(c) by failing to conduct a program effectiveness evaluation incoporated into\n2\n\n\n\nGTS’s Public Awareness Plan (PAP). Section 2.5 GTS’s PAP requires that the\neffectiveness review found in Section 8 of API RP 1162 be carried out every 4 years. At\nthe time of the inspection, GTS had conducted an effectiveness review in June 18, 2014,\nand the subsequent effectiveness review was completed on July 10, 2019. GTS therefore\nconducted the review 13 months beyond the four year interval prescribed in its written\nprocedures.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$218,647 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,186,465 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 27, 2018 and before July 31,\n2019, the maximum penalty may not exceed $213,268 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,132,679. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before\nNovember 27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a\nmaximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015,\nthe maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty\nnot to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed\nthe circumstances and supporting documentation involved for the above probable violations and\nhas recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $19,000 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $19,000\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Item 1, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to GTS. Please refer to the Proposed\nCompliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nEnforcement Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of the\ndocument with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request a\nhearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this Notice,\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. If you are responding to this Notice, we propose that you\n3\n\n\n\nsubmit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from the receipt of this Notice. This\nperiod may be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2019-1012 and, for each document\nyou submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Stephen L. Wassel, P.E., Vice President Storage and Peaking Operations, Golden Triangle\nStorage, Inc., 10 Peachtree Place, Atlanta, Georgia 30309\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement 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 Golden Triangle Storage, Inc. (GTS) a Compliance\nOrder incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of GTS with\nthe pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to maintaining appropriate\nrecords when a notice of excavation is given or received, GTS must retrain its\npersonnel on the records maintenance requirement as contained in section 3.2.2 of\nthe written Damage Prevention Plan within 90 days of the issuance of the Final\nOrder and provide copies of the training records to the Southwest Region.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that GTS maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the\ntotal to Mary. L. McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be reported in two\ncategories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures,\nstudies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and\nother changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n420191012_Closure Letter_10222020_text.pdf\n\nELECTRONIC MAIL\nOctober 22, 2020\nStephen L. Wassell, P.E.\nVice President – Storage & Peaking Operations\nGolden Triangle Storage, Inc.\n10 Peachtree Place, NE\nAtlanta, Georgia 30309\nCPF 4-2019-1012\nDear Mr. Wassell:\nOn July 27, 2020, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Golden Triangle Storage, Inc. a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included\na Compliance Order and assessed a civil penalty of $19,000 Based on our review of the\ndocumentation provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined\nthat you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Ms. Kimberly S. Greene, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Southern Company\nGas, kgreene@southernco.com\n\n420191012_Final Order_07272020_text.pdf\n\nJuly 27, 2020\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: swassell@southernco.com\nMr. Stephen L. Wassell, P.E.\nVice President – Storage & Peaking Operations\nGolden Triangle Storage, Inc.\n10 Peachtree Place, NE\nAtlanta, Georgia 30309\nRe: CPF No. 4-2019-1012\nDear Mr. Wassell:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $19,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final\nOrder. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed,\nas determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed.\nService of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as\nprovided 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: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMs. Kimberly S. Greene, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Southern Company\nGas, kgreene@southernco.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of )\nGolden Triangle Storage, Inc., ) CPF No. 4-2019-1012\na subsidiary of Southern Company Gas, )\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom January 7 through June 22, 2019, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Golden\nTriangle Storage, Inc. (GTS or Respondent) in Orange, Texas. GTS, a wholly-owned subsidiary\nof Southern Company Gas, is a natural gas storage facility in the Spindletop salt dome in\nJefferson and Orange Counties in Texas. GTS consists of salt dome storage caverns with\napproximately 13 Bcf of working gas capacity, 600 MMcf/day withdrawal capacity, and 300\nMMcf/day injection capacity.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 9, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that GTS had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $19,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nGTS responded to the Notice by letter dated January 7, 2020 (Response). The company\ncontested one of the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and\nrequested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\n1 Pivotal Energy Development website, Golden Triangle Storage Operations, available at:\nhttp://pivotalenergydev.com/commercial-operations/golden-triangle-storage (last accessed July 8, 2020).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1012\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(a), which states:\n§ 192.614 Damage prevention program.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, each\noperator of a buried pipeline must carry out, in accordance with this section\na written program to prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation\nactivities. For the purpose of this section, the term \"excavation activities\"\nincludes excavation, blasting, boring, tunneling, backfilling, the removal of\naboveground structures by either explosive or mechanical means, and other\nearth moving operations.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.614(a) by failing to follow three\nseparate provisions of its Damage Prevention Plan (DPP). Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nGTS failed to follow sections 3.3.1(D), 3.15.5(6), and 3.2.2(c) and (e) of its DPP for third-party\nexcavation activities intended to commence on November 26, 2018, pursuant to locate ticket\nnumbers 1882417960 and 1882418774, which were received by GTS on November 20, 2018.\nSection 3.3.1(D) of the DPP required GTS to mark its pipeline within two working days (48\nhours) after receiving a pipeline locate ticket. GTS received two locate tickets on November 20,\n2018, but did not mark its pipeline until November 27, 2018, in violation of its DPP. Section\n3.15.5(6) and 3.2.2(c) required GTS to provide a positive response to the requested locate tickets\nthrough notification to the local One Call Center or the party requesting the marking of the\npipelines in the area of the planned excavation activity prior to the work being performed.\nFinally, section 3.2.2(e) required GTS to maintain appropriate records if a notice of a pipeline\nlocation is requested and completed.\nWith respect to the alleged violation of § 192.614(a), Respondent stated that it was “not\ncontesting the allegation, however the Company does feel that it is important to ensure the record\nis correct on the details of what is required by Texas Law.” GTS clarified that the markings\nwere not required to be complete no later than November 22, 2018, which is 48 hours after the\ntickets were received because November 22, 2018 was Thanksgiving Day, and, under Texas law,\nthe 48-hour period after receiving a locate ticket during which a pipeline must be marked\nexcludes weekends and legal holidays. Respondent stated the markings were not required to be\nmade until Monday November 26, 2018, but stipulated in the Response, the markings were not\ncompleted until November 27, 2018. In addition, GTS clarified that the positive response\nnotification required under the tickets at issue was to notify the excavator or the One Call Center\nthat the pipeline was “clear” because it was not located within the area of planned excavation.\nFinally, GTS acknowledged that it failed to maintain complete records related to the locate ticket\nrequest and completion of the notification.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.614(a) by failing to follow its DPP in response to two locate tickets received on\nNovember 20, 2018.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1012\nPage 3\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), which states:\n§ 192.616 Public awareness.\n(a) ….\n(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,\nincluding baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless\nthe operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to\nwhy compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice\nis not practicable and not necessary for safety.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to conduct a\nprogram effectiveness evaluation incorporated into its Public Awareness Plan (PAP), as required\nby the general program recommendations of API RP 1162 (incorporated by reference, see\n§ 192.7). Specifically, the Notice alleged that section 2.5 of GTS's PAP required that the\neffectiveness review found in Section 8 of API RP 1162 be carried out every four years. At the\ntime of the inspection, GTS had conducted an effectiveness review on June 18, 2014, and the\nsubsequent effectiveness review was completed on July 10, 2019. The Notice therefore alleged\nthat GTS conducted the review 13 months beyond the four-year interval prescribed in its written\nprocedures.\nIn its Response, GTS contested the allegation of violation and stated that it had completed the\neffectiveness evaluation within four years of the prior effectiveness evaluation. Specifically,\nGTS stated that it performed the effectiveness evaluation via surveys from January through June\nof 2018 after public educational material was disseminated over the preceding four years, and it\nwas the analysis of the effectiveness evaluation surveys that did not occur within four years from\nthe June 18, 2014 effectiveness evaluation. GTS cited to section 8.4.2 and Table 8-1 of API RP\n1162 to support its position that surveys are an appropriate evaluation technique, and that such\nsurveys are only required once every four years after the initial effectiveness evaluation. GTS\ncontested PHMSA’s allegation that API RP 1162 requires a final analysis of the results of an\neffectiveness survey no later than four years from the date of the prior evaluation. Rather, GTS\nargues that API RP 1162 requires only the effectiveness evaluation, in this case the surveys, to be\ncompleted within four years of the prior evaluation.\nGTS is correct that Section 8 of API RP 1162 specifically states that surveys are permissible\nmethods to perform an evaluation of the effectiveness of a Public Awareness Program. GTS is\nalso correct that Table 8-1 of API RP 1162 specifically states that such evaluations, conducted\nvia surveys, are required to be performed not more than four years apart. The Notice alleged that\nan effectiveness evaluation under API RP 1162 necessarily includes a complete and final\nanalysis of the findings of the survey(s) performed, and that GTS failed to complete the analysis\nof the survey results not more than four years from the prior effectiveness evaluation.\nThe issue to resolve in this case is whether API RP 1162, by its terms only, requires a final\nanalysis of an effectiveness evaluation conducted via a survey every four years, or if only the\nsurvey but not an analysis of the results is required every four years. I find that it requires the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1012\nPage 4\nformer. Section 2.7 - Program Development Guide, Step 11 – Perform Program Evaluation, of\nAPI RP 1162 specifically requires operators to complete four discrete tasks in order to evaluate\nthe effectiveness of a public awareness program. Those tasks are as follows: (1) establish an\nevaluation process; (2) determine input data sources (via survey, etc.); (3) assess results and\napplicability of the data from the evaluation; and (4) document the results of the evaluation.\nSection 2.7, Step 11 then directs the reader to Section 8 – Measuring Program Effectiveness.\nSection 8, in turn, provides that the operator must assess whether the program is reaching the\nright audience, whether the program is understood, whether people are acting accordingly, and\nwhether third-party damage is less frequent as a result of the program. A mere sampling and\ncollecting of data without analyzing the data does not fulfill all the requirements of the program\nperformance evaluation under API RP 1162, and thus the regulation at issue. In sum, I find that\nif an operator elects to use a survey(s) to evaluate the effectiveness of its public awareness\nprogram, the operator must complete the evaluation, which requires a documented analysis of the\nresults of the survey(s), not later than four years from the prior effectiveness evaluation.\nRespondent failed to analyze the effectiveness evaluation surveys as part of its program\neffectiveness review within four years from the last effectiveness evaluation.\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c) by failing to conduct a program effectiveness evaluation not later than\nfour years from the prior evaluation.\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.2 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; any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $19,000 for the violation in Item 2 cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,000 for Respondent’s alleged violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.616(c), for failing to conduct a program effectiveness evaluation incorporated\ninto its Public Awareness Plan (PAP), as required by the general program recommendations of\nAPI RP 1162. In its Response, GTS contested the allegation of violation and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be eliminated. As detailed above, I find GTS in violation of the regulation\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1012\nPage 5\nat issue in Item 2 and reject the request to eliminate the proposed civil penalty associated with\nthis Item. GTS did not contest PHMSA’s selection of the assessment criteria used to calculate\nthe proposed civil penalty, and I find that the assessment criteria were properly applied in this\ncase. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $19,000 for failing to conduct a program effectiveness evaluation\nas required by API RP 1162.\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.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $19,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin 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 1 in the Notice for violations of\n49 C.F.R. § 192.614(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to\nensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 192.616(a) (Item 1), Respondent must retrain its\npersonnel on the records maintenance requirement as contained.in section 3.2.2 of\nthe written Damage Prevention Plan within 90 days of the issuance of the Final\nOrder and provide copies of the training records to the Southwest Region.\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.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the\nDirector. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated\nwith preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated\nwith replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2019-1012\nPage 6\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\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 this\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nJuly 27, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28982}