{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420195010","title":"SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2019-03-18","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.412(a), 195.573(a)(1), 195.583(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195010.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195010.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420195010","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420195010","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.412(a),  195.573(a)(1),  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2019-03-18 and is reported as open. Proposed civil penalty: $69,800. Assessed civil penalty: $69,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420195010_Final Order_02112020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195010/420195010_Final%20Order_02112020.pdf\n\n420195010_Final Order_02112020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195010/420195010_Final%20Order_02112020_text.pdf\n\n420195010_NOPV PCP PCO_03182019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195010/420195010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03182019.pdf\n\n420195010_NOPV PCP PCO_03182019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195010/420195010_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_03182019_text.pdf\n\n420195010_Operator Response to Notice_ 06032019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420195010/420195010_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_%2006032019.pdf\n\n420195010_NOPV PCP PCO_03182019_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 18, 2019\nGregory McIlwain\nSenior Vice President Operations\nSunoco Pipeline L.P.\n1300 Main Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nCPF 5-2019-5010\nDear Mr. McIlwain:\nFrom January 22, 2018 through December 05, 2018, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) inspected Sunoco Pipeline L.P.’s (Sunoco) Garden City\nPipeline in Houston, Abilene, and Pearland, 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:\n1. §195.583 – What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Onshore Offshore Then the frequency of inspection is:\nAt least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding\n39 months\nAt least once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths\n\n\n\nSunoco failed to conduct an atmospheric corrosion inspection on the Bronte to Garden City 10”\nsegment at station # 2260 + 00 and 2227 + 64 at the required frequency of at least once every 3\nyears, with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Records reviewed show that the most recent\natmospheric corrosion inspection was carried out on September 9, 2013. Records further indicated\nan attempt was made to re-inspect the locations on November 30, 2016; however, Sunoco\npersonnel were denied access (within the Fort Hood Army Base.) The reinspection of these\nsegments was eventually carried out on March 28, 2018, resulting in a reinspection interval of 54\nmonths rather than the required 39 month maximum.\n2. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine whether cathodic\nprotection required by this subpart complies with § 195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar year, but with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those intervals are impractical\nfor separately protected short sections of bare or ineffectively coated pipelines, testing\nmay be done at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39\nmonths.\nSunoco failed to conduct annual cathodic protection surveys to determine its adequacy and\ncompliance with §195.571 on the Temple to Evant Segment (Stations 1292 + 87 to 1717 +41) for\ntwo consecutive years (witin the Fort Hood Army Base.) A review of annual cathodic survey\nrecords provided at the time of the PHMSA inspection indicated that a survey was not completed\nfor 2016, 2017 and continuing up to the time of this inspection in 2018.\n3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system a manual\nof written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities\nand handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall be reviewed\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and\nappropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is effective. This\nmanual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline system commence,\nand appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where operations and maintenance\nactivities are conducted\nSunoco’s Corrosion supervisors did not carry out the periodic review of the operating personnel’s\nwork (inspection records) for atmospheric corrosion evaluations conducted. Sunoco’s written\nOperations and Maintenance manual section 195.583 entitled Monitoring for Atmospheric\nCorrosion – subsection 4(ii) requires that any remediation required be completed not later than one\ncalendar year from the date of discovery. Atmospheric Corrosion Inspection records reviewed for\nmultiple stations on the Evant – Zephyr 10” segment showed that while atmospheric inspections\n2\n\n\n\n4. were carried out on 7/28/2016 and 8/3/2016, the periodic review by the supervisor did not happen\nuntil 8/8/2017 which is more than one year after the inspection.\n§195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.\n(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each\ncalendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right-of-\nway. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other appropriate\nmeans of traversing the right-of-way.\nSunoco failed to carry out the right of way inspection for the portion of the right of way within the\nU.S. Army’s Fort Hood base. Sunoco was unable to provide records to demonstrate that the right\nof way inspection was carried out as required by §195.412(a). Following the inspection, Sunoco\nprovided information to confirm that the inspections of the right of way had not occurred in 2016\nand 2017, but had resumed in July 2018 after Sunoco merged with Energy Transfer Partners.\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$213,268 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,132,679 for a related\nseries of violations. For violation occurring on or after November 2, 2015 and before November\n27, 2018, the maximum penalty may not exceed $209,002 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,090,022. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the\nmaximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to\nexceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the\ncircumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has\nrecommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $69,800 as follows:\nItem number PENALTY\n2 $69,800\nWarning Items\nWith respect to items 1, 3, and 4 we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting documents\ninvolved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement action or penalty\nassessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct this item. Failure to do\nso may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Sunoco Pipeline L.P. Please refer to the\nProposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice.\n3\n\n\n\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in\nCompliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All\nmaterial you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly available. If 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\nsubmit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from receipt of this Notice. This period\nmay be extended by written request for good cause.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 4-2019-5010 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\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\n4\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Sunoco Pipeline L.P. a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Sunoco Pipeline\nL.P. with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. In regards to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to conducting tests on the\nprotected pipeline segment from Temple to Evant at least once every year with\nintervals not exceeding 15 months to determine the adequacy of the cathodic\nprotection, Sunoco Pipeline shall arrange to have the cathodic protection tests\nperformed on the Temple to Evant Segment within 60 days of the issuance of the\nFinal order provide records if a survey has been completed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Sunoco Pipeline L.P maintain documentation of\nthe safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and\nsubmit the total to Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs be\nreported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\n5\n\n420195010_Final Order_02112020_text.pdf\n\nFebruary 11, 2020\nMr. Kelcy L. Warren\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nRe: CPF No. 4-2019-5010\nDear Mr. Warren:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,\nSunoco Pipeline, LP. It makes a finding of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $69,800, and\nspecifies actions that need to be taken by Sunoco to comply with the pipeline safety regulations.\nWhen the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon\nthe date of mailing 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 (Final Order)\ncc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Eric Amundsen, Senior Vice President – Operations, Energy Transfer, LP\nMr. Mark Milliken, Senior Vice President – Technical Services, Energy Transfer, LP\nMr. Danny Nichols, Senior Director – Regulatory Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP\nMr. Chris Lason, Vice President – Asset Integrity, Energy Transfer, LP\nMr. Delyn Houder, Senior Manager – Corrosion Services, Energy Transfer, LP\nMr. Todd Nardozzi, Senior Manager – Regulatory Compliance, Energy Transfer, 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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nSunoco Pipeline, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2019-5010\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom January 22, 2018, through December 05, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted on-site pipeline safety inspections of the facilities and\nrecords of Sunoco Pipeline, LP’s (Sunoco or Respondent) Garden City pipeline in Houston,\nAbilene, and Pearland, Texas. Sunoco Pipeline, LP, is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, one\nof the largest energy companies in the United States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated March 18, 2019, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nSunoco had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $69,800\nfor the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violation. The warning items required no further action but\nwarned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nSunoco responded to the Notice by letter dated June 3, 2019 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the Notice, but provided additional information and requested a modification to the\nproposed compliance order terms. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nIn its Response, Sunoco did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part\n195, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1), which states:\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\n1 Energy Transfer, LP website, available at https://www.energytransfer.com/ownership-structure/ (last accessed\nDecember 18, 2019).\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2019-5010\nPage 2\n§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?\n(a) Protected pipelines. You must do the following to determine\nwhether cathodic protection required by this subpart complies with\n§195.571:\n(1) Conduct tests on the protected pipeline at least once each calendar\nyear, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months. However, if tests at those\nintervals are impractical for separately protected short sections of bare or\nineffectively coated pipelines, testing may be done at least once every 3\ncalendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct a\ntest on its Temple to Evant Segment (located within the Fort Hood Army base) at least once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine the adequacy of its\ncathodic protection and compliance with § 195.571. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Sunoco\nfailed to conduct an annual cathodic protection survey in 2016, 2017, and continuing up to the\ntime of the inspection in 2018.\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. § 195.573(a)(1) by failing to conduct a\ntest on its Temple to Evant Segment (located within the Fort Hood Army base) once each\ncalendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to determine the adequacy of its\ncathodic protection and compliance with § 195.571.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.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 $69,800 for the violation cited above.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $69,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.573(a)(1), for failing to conduct a test on its Temple to Evant Segment (located within the\nFort Hood Army base) once each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to\n2 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2019-5010\nPage 3\ndetermine the adequacy of its cathodic protection and compliance with § 195.571. Sunoco\nneither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in\nor elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $69,800 for violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 69,800.\nFailure to pay the $69,800 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 2 in the Notice for violation of 49\nC.F.R. § 195.573(a)(1). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nConcerning the violation of § 195.573(a)(1) (Item 2), Respondent stated that due to the nature of\nactivities conducted at Fort Hood, the U.S. Army has limited and restricted Sunoco’s access to\ncertain areas of the company’s right-of-way (ROW). Respondent stated that it is engaged in\ndiscussions with the Army about Sunoco’s need to access the ROW and is taking steps to\nfacilitate the relocation of the pipeline. The company stated that it would be unable to fully\ncomply with the conditions of the proposed compliance order until the Army either permits\naccess sufficient for Respondent to satisfy its obligations under Part 195, and/or the pipeline is\nrelocated. In the meantime, Respondent proposed the following alternative activities to ensure\ncontinued pipeline integrity:\n1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Continued efforts by Sunoco to negotiate access with the Army;\nWeekly aerial patrols (weather permitting);\nAnnual in-line inspections (ILI) with a Def/MFL tool;\nAnalysis of ILI resultant data sets against past data sets; and\nIdentification of any corrosion growth rate levels that would impact the calculated time to\ncritical wall loss.\nRespondent proposed to perform these alternative activities until such time that it is able to gain\nfull access to the pipeline or the pipeline is relocated, whichever occurs first. Respondent also\nstated that it would communicate with the Director, and take all appropriate action, consistent\nwith 49 C.F.R. Part 195, should the monitoring and analysis identify actionable anomalies on the\npipe.\nIn consideration of the Respondent’s inability to access certain areas of the ROW, the Director\nfound the alternative activities acceptable but only for a limited amount of time. The Director\nhas recommended that a time limit of one year be imposed, along with a requirement for\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2019-5010\nPage 4\nRespondent to provide periodic progress reports on its discussions with the U.S. Army every\nthree months.\nRespondent cannot comply with the PCO as written in the Notice; however, allowing the\nRespondent to perform alternative actions indefinitely would exceed the scope of a compliance\norder and enter the realm of a special permit. Therefore, I find that a reasonable time limit of\none year, with an opportunity to extend with approval from the Director, should be included in\nthe order. I also find that requiring updates of the Respondent’s discussions with the U.S. Army\nis critical for the ability of the Director to evaluate Respondent’s progress toward resolving the\nissue of access to the ROW.\nHaving considered all the facts discussed above, I find that the compliance order should be\nmodified as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions, for a period of one year from the date of this Final Order,\nwith an opportunity to extend the compliance period for two additional one-year periods with the\napproval of the Director, to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to\nits operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.573(a)(1) (Item 2), Respondent must:\na. b. c. d. e. f. Continue its efforts to negotiate access to its pipeline with the U.S. Army;\nConduct weekly aerial patrols (weather permitting);\nConduct annual ILIs with a Def/MFL tool;\nAnalyze the ILI resultant data sets against past data sets;\nIdentify any corrosion growth rate levels that would impact the calculated\ntime to critical wall loss; and\nProvide progress reports on discussion efforts for access to the pipeline\nsegments within the U.S. Army base at Fort Hood and the conditional status\nof the pipeline to the Director every three months from the date of issuance of\nthe final order.\nAt the end of the one-year time period, or as extended by the Director for up to three years, this\nCompliance Order will expire and Respondent must either come into full compliance with\n§ 195.573(a)(1), seek and obtain a special permit from PHMSA, or face potential enforcement\naction. Within such limitations, the Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any\nof the required items upon a written request timely submitted by the Respondent and\ndemonstrating good cause for an extension.\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.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\n\n\n\nCPF 4-2019-5010\nPage 5\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.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 3, and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to conduct an\natmospheric corrosion inspection on the Bronte to Garden City 10” segment at\nstation # 2260+00 and 2227+64 at the required frequency of at least once every 3\nyears, with intervals not exceeding 39 months;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have Corrosion\nSupervisors carry out periodic reviews of their operating personnel’s work\n(inspection records) for atmospheric corrosion evaluations; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to carry out right-\nof-way inspections for that portion of the company’s ROW within the U.S.\nArmy’s Fort Hood base, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks but at least 26 times\neach calendar year.\nIf OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be\nsubject to future enforcement action.\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 filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other 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.\nFebruary 11, 2020\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":26309}