# EXXONMOBIL PRODUCTION COMPANY, A DIVISION OF EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 42021013NOPV
- **title:** EXXONMOBIL PRODUCTION COMPANY, A DIVISION OF EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2021-03-04
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.440(c), 195.442(a), 195.49, 195.505(i), 195.555.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021013nopv.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021013nopv.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42021013nopv
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42021013NOPV
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving EXXONMOBIL PRODUCTION COMPANY, A DIVISION OF EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.440(c),  195.442(a),  195.49,  195.505(i),  195.555. The case was opened on 2021-03-04 and is reported as closed as of 2022-01-26. Proposed civil penalty: $39,200. Assessed civil penalty: $19,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

42021013NOPV_Closure Letter_01262022_(20-172153).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021013NOPV/42021013NOPV_Closure%20Letter_01262022_(20-172153).pdf

42021013NOPV_Closure Letter_01262022_(20-172153)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021013NOPV/42021013NOPV_Closure%20Letter_01262022_(20-172153)_text.pdf

42021013NOPV_Final Order_12212021_(20-172153).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021013NOPV/42021013NOPV_Final%20Order_12212021_(20-172153).pdf

42021013NOPV_Final Order_12212021_(20-172153)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021013NOPV/42021013NOPV_Final%20Order_12212021_(20-172153)_text.pdf

42021013NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_04022021_(20-172153).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021013NOPV/42021013NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04022021_(20-172153).pdf

42021013NOPV_PCP PCO_03042021_(20-172153).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021013NOPV/42021013NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03042021_(20-172153).pdf

42021013NOPV_PCP PCO_03042021_(20-172153)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42021013NOPV/42021013NOPV_PCP%20PCO_03042021_(20-172153)_text.pdf

42021013NOPV_Final Order_12212021_(20-172153)_text.pdf

December 21, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: liam.m.mallon@exxonmobil.com
Mr. Liam Mallon
President
ExxonMobil Upstream Oil & Gas Company, US Conventional
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
Spring, Texas 77389
Re: CPF No. 4-2021-013-NOPV
Dear Mr. Mallon:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of
the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of
$19,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by ExxonMobil Upstream Oil & Gas
Company, US Conventional, to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty
payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the
terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this
enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the
date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Otis Dickinson, Santa Ynez Unit Safety, Security, Health, and Environment
Supervisor, ExxonMobil Upstream Oil & Gas, US Conventional,
otis.dickinson@exxonmobil.com
Mr. Adolfo Calero, Regulatory Specialist, ExxonMobil Upstream Oil & Gas, US
Conventional, adolfo.a.calero@exxonmobil.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
)
)
ExxonMobil Upstream Oil & Gas Co., US Conventional, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
) CPF No. 4-2021-013-NOPV
FINAL ORDER
From July 7, 2020 through September 25, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative
of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline
Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of the
Santa Ynez Unit, owned and operated by ExxonMobil Upstream Oil & Gas Company, US
Conventional (ExxonMobil or Respondent) off the coast of California. The Santa Ynez Unit
consists of three offshore production platforms (Heritage, Harmony, and Hondo) and an onshore
oil and natural gas processing facility (the Las Flores Processing Plant). PHMSA inspected the
11.2-mile transportation pipeline originating offshore on Platform Harmony and traveling
onshore to the Las Flores Processing Plant.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated March 4, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that ExxonMobil had committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195,
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $39,200 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering
Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included
an additional warning item pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which required no further action,
but warned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement
action.
ExxonMobil responded to the Notice by letter dated April 2, 2021 (Response). ExxonMobil
contested several of the allegations and offered additional information in response to the Notice.
Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.49, which states, in
relevant part:



CPF No. 4-2021-013-NOPV
Page 2
§ 195.49 Annual report.
Each operator must annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA
F 7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the
end of the previous year. An operator must submit the annual report by June
15 each year, except that for the 2010 reporting year the report must be
submitted by August 15, 2011….
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.49 by failing to annually complete
and submit DOT Form PHMSA F 7000-1.1 (Annual Report) for each type of hazardous liquid
pipeline facility operated at the end of the previous year by June 15. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that ExxonMobil failed to complete and submit its 2019 Annual Report by June 15,
2020. Instead, the company submitted its 2019 Annual Report on July 8, 2020. After submittal,
PHMSA discovered mileage discrepancies by system type between the 2018 and 2019 Annual
Reports.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.49 failing to timely submit its
2019 Annual Report.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c), which states:
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
(a) . . .
(c) The operator must follow the general program recommendations,
including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless
the operator provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to
why compliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice
is not practicable and not necessary for safety.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(c) by failing to follow the
general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of
American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162, unless the operator
provides justification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or
certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that although ExxonMobil incorporated API RP 1162 into its
Public Awareness Program, it failed to implement certain requirements. During the inspection,
ExxonMobil could not provide documentation or other evidence to demonstrate that it had
performed an annual review of its program pursuant to API RP 1162 Section 8.3, or that it had
assessed its program effectiveness every 4 years as required by API RP 1162 Section 8.4.
In its Response, ExxonMobil provided additional information about its Public Awareness
Program, including details regarding how the company performs annual reviews to measure
program effectiveness. On April 13, 2021, ExxonMobil submitted documents to PHMSA
demonstrating that the company performed annual program effectiveness reviews for 2016-2019.
Although it is unclear why these documents were not timely provided to PHMSA upon request
during the onsite inspection, these records demonstrate that ExxonMobil complied with the cited
requirements.



CPF No. 4-2021-013-NOPV
Page 3
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find ExxonMobil did not violate 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.440(c). Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(i), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.505 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) . . .
(i) After December 16, 2004, notify the Administrator or a state agency
participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator significantly
modifies the program after the administrator or state agency has verified
that it complies with this section….
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(i) by failing to notify PHMSA
that it significantly modified its Operator Qualification (OQ) program after PHMSA had verified
it complied with 49 C.F.R. § 195.505. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ExxonMobil failed to
notify PHMSA after it made significant modifications to its OQ program, including the removal
of covered assets, approval of OQ modules for various covered tasks, changes in course
materials, and changes to its evaluation process, by replacing its computer-based training with a
third-party service provider.
In its Response, ExxonMobil contested this allegation of violation. Specifically, the company
explained that it did not consider these changes to significantly modify its OQ program and
therefore, it did not need to report the changes to PHMSA. ExxonMobil considered these
changes to be insignificant for several reasons: (1) the removal of its covered asset—the Mobile
Bay pipeline system, located in Alabama—did not affect the OQ Program implemented at the
Santa Ynez Unit facility in California; (2) the course materials (computer-based training and OQ
modules) were replaced with updated content from the same third-party service provider; and (3)
the method of evaluation for its OQ Program was not changed, and still consists of a knowledge-
based component and a hands-on observation.
49 C.F.R. § 195.505(i) requires an operator to notify PHMSA if it “significantly modifies” its
OQ program. Therefore, in order to determine if ExxonMobil should have notified PHMSA of
these changes to its OQ program, I must determine if they are “significant changes.” In 2009,
PHMSA published an Advisory Bulletin that defined “significant changes” to an operator’s OQ
program that would warrant notification to PHMSA.1 The Advisory Bulletin explained that “[a]s
applicable to OQ program modifications, significant includes but is not limited to: increasing
evaluation intervals, increasing span of control ratios, eliminating covered tasks, mergers and/or
acquisition changes, evaluation method changes such as written vs. observation, and wholesale
changes made to OQ plan.”2
1 Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification (OQ) Program Modifications, 74 FR 64123-01, Dec. 7, 2009.
2 I also note that ExxonMobil’s Management of Change (MOC) procedures require that “high impact changes” be
reported to PHMSA, including the “addition/deletion of a covered task, change in acceptable method of evaluations,
or an increase in the span-of-control or the frequency of evaluation.” See PHMSA Pipeline Safety Violation Report
at Exhibit E-3 (Mar. 4, 2021) (on file with PHMSA).



CPF No. 4-2021-013-NOPV
Page 4
After reviewing the changes ExxonMobil made to its OQ program, I do not find they were
significant changes that required notification. First, the removal of the Mobile Bay pipeline
system in Alabama did not impact the OQ Program administered at the Santa Ynez Unit in
California. Second, in its Response, ExxonMobil explained that the course materials referenced
in its MOC procedures were updates to existing course materials from the same third-party
service provider. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that these module updates served
to change evaluation methods (e.g., written vs. observation) or otherwise constituted wholesale
changes to the OQ program.
In sum, none of the changes referenced in the Notice that ExxonMobil made to its OQ program
significantly modified or made wholesale changes to its OQ program. The company did not
make changes to covered tasks, modify acceptable evaluation methods, or increase span-of-
control or frequency of evaluations. Further, although some “merger and/or acquisition changes”
may constitute significant modifications to an OQ program, there is nothing in the record to
suggest that the sale of its assets in Alabama changed the implementation of its OQ program in
California.3 PHMSA has previously found that a change in assets without corresponding
changes to the OQ plan is not a significant modification required to be reported.4 Accordingly,
since ExxonMobil did not significantly modify its OQ program, it did not need to submit
notification to PHMSA of these changes.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find ExxonMobil did not violate 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.505(i) as alleged in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 4 be
withdrawn.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.555, which states:
§ 195.555 What are the qualifications for supervisors?
You must require and verify that supervisors maintain a thorough
knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control procedures established
under § 195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for insuring
compliance.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.555 by failing to require and verify
that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control
procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for ensuring
compliance. According to ExxonMobil’s written procedures, “[a]nnually, supervisors will
indicate, by signing DOT Form TR, that they understand the corrosion control procedures
employed for the DOT pipelines they steward....” During the inspection, however, PHMSA
discovered that these forms were completed by ExxonMobil’s Safety and Risk Advisor, and not
the requisite supervisors, as required by § 195.555 and ExxonMobil’s procedures. The Notice
3 For example, in a prior enforcement case, PHMSA found an operator violated § 195.505(i) when it failed to notify
PHMSA following an acquisition that involved merging multiple OQ programs and removing certain covered tasks.
In the Matter of Targa NGL Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2020-5017, 2021 WL 663175 (Feb. 12, 2021).
4 See In the Matter of Tristate NLA, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2020-006-NOPV, 2021 WL 4055261 (Aug. 9,
2021) (finding an operator did not commit a violation of § 192.805(i) when the operator acquired additional pipeline
facilities but the acquisition did not result in any changes to its OQ program).



CPF No. 4-2021-013-NOPV
Page 5
further alleged that several of the company’s supervisors had let their corrosion control training
lapse.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.555 failing to require and verify
that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the corrosion control
procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) for which they are responsible for ensuring
compliance.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.5
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction
because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice
proposed a total civil penalty of $39,200 for the violations cited above.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,600 for Respondent’s alleged violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.440(c). Since this alleged violation has been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is
not assessed.
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.555, for failing to require and verify that supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of
that portion of the corrosion control procedures established under § 195.402(c)(3) for which they
are responsible for ensuring compliance. Although pipeline safety was minimally affected,
ExxonMobil failed to comply with a requirement that was clearly applicable and did not provide
a justification for its noncompliance. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered
the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $19,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.555.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $19,600.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.



CPF No. 4-2021-013-NOPV
Page 6
C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $19,600 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.49, 195.440(c), 195.505(i) and 195.555, respectively. Under 49
U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who
owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards
established under chapter 601. Since Items 2 and 4 have been withdrawn, the associated
compliance terms for each item are also withdrawn.
In response to Item 1, the Director has indicated that Respondent submitted a corrected 2019
Supplemental Annual Report to PHMSA. Accordingly, I find that compliance has been
achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice
for Item 1 are not included in this Order.
As for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49
C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with
the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.555 (Item 5), Respondent must ensure that
its supervisors annually sign a DOT Form TR to indicate that they understand the
procedures employed for the pipelines that they are responsible within 30 days of
receipt of the Final Order. ExxonMobil must also ensure all supervisors have the
required training that is up-to-date and submit updated training records to PHMSA for
review within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with



CPF No. 4-2021-013-NOPV
Page 7
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not
to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEM
With respect to Item 3, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195, but identified it as a
warning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.442(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to carry out its
written program to prevent damage to that pipeline from excavation activities
If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject
to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays
the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
December 21, 2021
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

42021013NOPV_Closure Letter_01262022_(20-172153)_text.pdf

ELECTRONIC MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
January 26, 2022
Liam Mallon
President
ExxonMobil Upstream Oil & Gas Company, US Conventional
22777 Springwoods Village Parkway
Spring, Texas 77389
CPF 4-2021-013-NOPV
Dear Mr. Mallon:
On December 21, 2021, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to ExxonMobil Upstream Oil & Gas Company, US Conventional (ExxonMobil), a Final
Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order requirement to
ensure ExxonMobil’s supervisors had up-to-date training and assessed a Civil Penalty. Based on
PHMSA’s review of the documentation provided by ExxonMobil and confirmation of payment of
the Civil Penalty, it has been determined that ExxonMobil has complied with the terms of the Final
Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.
Director, Southwest Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 24649