{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42022006NOPV","title":"PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-09-16","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202, 195.307(c), 195.579(d).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022006nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022006nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022006nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42022006NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.307(c),  195.579(d). The case was opened on 2022-09-16 and is reported as closed as of 2024-01-11. Proposed civil penalty: $552,800. Assessed civil penalty: $297,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42022006NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_04262023_(20-193352).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_04262023_(20-193352).pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_04262023_(20-193352)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_Consent%20Agreement%20and%20Order_04262023_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_Operator RtN and Request for Hearing_10142022_(20-193352).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_Operator%20RtN%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_10142022_(20-193352).pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_Operator Withdrawal of Hearing Request_04272023_(20-193352).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_Operator%20Withdrawal%20of%20Hearing%20Request_04272023_(20-193352).pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PCP_09162022_(20-193352).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_PCP_09162022_(20-193352).pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PCP_09162022_(20-193352)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_PCP_09162022_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_03302023_(20-193352).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_03302023_(20-193352).pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_03302023_(20-193352)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_03302023_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_04242023_(20-193352).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_04242023_(20-193352).pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_04242023_(20-193352)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_04242023_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_12022022_(20-193352).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_12022022_(20-193352).pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_12022022_(20-193352)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022006NOPV/42022006NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_12022022_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_04242023_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\nDate: April 24, 2023\nFrom: Larry White\nTo: File\nRe: Continuance of Hearing, Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\nCPF No. 4-2022-006-NOPV\nBy electronic mail dated April 24, 2023, Ian Curry, Counsel for OPS Southwest Region, and\nCatherine Little, Counsel for Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, submitted a joint request for a continuance\nof the hearing previously scheduled for April 26, 2023. The request explained that the parties had\ncompleted the negotiation and drafting of a consent agreement to resolve the case which would\nmake a hearing unnecessary, and the additional time was needed to obtain the appropriate signatures\non the agreement.\nI granted the request for a continuance for one week until May 3, 2023 which will be the new\nhearing date if resolution by consent agreement is not completed by that time.\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_12022022_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\nDecember 2, 2022\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: catherine.little@bracewell.com and bryan.lethcoe@dot.gov\nMs. Catherine D. Little, Esq.\nCounsel for Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\nBracewell LLP\n600 Peachtree Street, NE\nSuite 3000\nAtlanta, GA 30308\nMr. Bryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n8701 South Gessner Road\nSuite 630\nHouston, Texas 77074\nRe: Notice of Hearing, Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\nCPF No. 4-2022-006-NOPV\nDear Ms. Little and Mr. Lethcoe:\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above-referenced case. The\nhearing will take place on April 12, 2023, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Central Time.\nThe hearing will take place at the PHMSA Southwest Region office, 8701 South Gessner Road,\nSuite 630, Houston, Texas 77074. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to\npresent photo identification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the\nhearing is (713) 272-2859.\nAt least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by April 3, 2023), both parties must submit and\nexchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and the name and\nemail address of each attendee. This information should be provided electronically. Materials\nnot submitted by this date may be excluded.\n\n\n\nIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.\nSincerely,\nLarry White\nPresiding Official\ncc: Mr. Manny Cortez, President, Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, manny.h.cortez@p66.com\nMs. Julie Pradel, Managing Counsel, Midstream and Projects, Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC,\njulie.p.pradel@p66.com\nMr. Ian Curry, Esq., Counsel, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,\nian.curry@dot.gov\n\n42022006NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_03302023_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\nDate: March 30, 2023\nFrom: Larry White\nTo: File\nRe: Continuance of Hearing, Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC\nCPF No. 4-2022-006-NOPV\nBy electronic mail dated March 29, 2023, Ian Curry, Counsel for OPS Southwest Region, and\nCatherine Little, Counsel for Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, submitted a joint request for a continuance\nof the hearing previously scheduled for April 12, 2023. The request explained that the parties were\nmoving forward with negotiation of a consent agreement to resolve the case which would make a\nhearing unnecessary and the additional time was needed to conclude the negotiations.\nI granted the request for a continuance until April 26, 2023 which will be the new hearing date if\nresolution by consent agreement is not completed by that time.\n\n42022006NOPV_Consent Agreement and Order_04262023_(20-193352)_text.pdf\n\nApril 26, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: manny.h.cortez@p66.com\nManny Cortez, President\nPhillips 66 Pipeline LLC\n2331 City West Blvd.\nHouston, Texas 77042\nCPF No. 4-2022-006-NOPV\nDear Mr. Cortez:\nEnclosed please find a Consent Order incorporating the terms of the Consent Agreement\nbetween the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and Phillips 66\nPipeline LLC, which was executed on April 26, 2023. Service of the Consent Order and Consent\nAgreement by electronic mail is deemed effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt, or as otherwise 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: Consent Order and Consent Agreement\ncc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Doug Sauer, Vice President, Pipeline Regulatory Affairs, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC,\ndoug.b.sauer@p66.com\nMs. Julie P. Pradel, Managing Counsel, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, julie.p.pradel@p66.com\nMs. Catherine D. Little, Outside Counsel for Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, Bracewell, LLP,\ncatherine.little@bracewell.com\nMs. Mandi Moroz, Outside Counsel for Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, Bracewell, LLP,\nmandi.moroz@bracewell.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\n____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nPhillips 66 Pipeline LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2022-006-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT ORDER\nBy letter dated September 16, 2022, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty (Notice) to Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC (Phillips 66 or Respondent).\nIn response to the Notice, Respondent requested a hearing on Items 1, 2 and 3, contesting the\nunderlying violations and proposed civil penalties (Response). Phillips 66 also asked for the\nopportunity to meet informally with PHMSA to discuss the allegations in the Notice. Respondent\nand PHMSA (the Parties) subsequently met to discuss the issues raised in the Response. As a\nresult of those discussions, as explained in more detail below, the Parties have agreed to a Consent\nAgreement by which Respondent, without admission, agreed to the findings of violation for Items\n1 and 2, accepted Item 3 as a warning, and agreed to pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of\n$297,200.\nAccordingly, the Consent Agreement is hereby approved and incorporated by reference into this\nConsent Order. Phillips 66 is hereby ordered to comply with the terms of the Consent Agreement\npursuant to its terms. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., failure to comply with this Consent\nOrder may result in the assessment of civil penalties as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49\nC.F.R. § 190.223.\nThe terms and conditions of this Consent Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nApril 26, 2023\n_____________________________ ______________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\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 )\nPhillips 66 Pipeline LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2022-006-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nCONSENT AGREEMENT\nFrom March 11, 2020, through June 4, 2021, 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.), performed an inspection following a reported accident\ninvolving Breakout Tank #1401 at Gray Oak Pipeline, LLC’s (Gray Oak’s) Helena Terminal in\nKarnes County, Texas. During that time, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC (Phillips 66 or Respondent)\nwas the operator of the Gray Oak system.1 On March 10, 2020, Phillips 66 notified the National\nResponse Center of an unintentional release of 6.50 barrels of crude oil from Breakout Tank #1401\nat Gray Oak’s Helena Terminal. After conducting its own internal investigation, Phillips 66\ndetermined that undetected weld defects caused the failure.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 16, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty (Notice), which also included a warning item pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Phillips 66 committed\nviolations of two provisions of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 (Items 1 and 2), and proposed a civil penalty of\n$552,800. The other probable violation (Item 3) was brought as a warning item, noting that failure\nto promptly correct this item may result in future enforcement action.\nPhillips 66 responded to the Notice by letter dated October 14, 2022 (Response). Respondent\ncontested the underlying violations and the proposed civil penalties.\nPHMSA and Respondent (the Parties) subsequently met to discuss the issues raised in the\nResponse. As a result of those discussions and as explained in more detail below, the parties agree\nto a reduced civil penalty of $297,200.\n1 The tanks and property at the Helena Terminal belong to Gray Oak Pipeline, LLC, a joint venture between\nsubsidiaries of Enbridge, Marathon Petroleum Corp. Diamondback Energy, Inc., and Phillips 66. Phillips 66 Pipeline\nLLC was the operator of that joint venture until April 1, 2023. As of that date, operations transferred to Enbridge\nHoldings (Gray Oak) LLC, a subsidiary of Enbridge.\n\n\n\nHaving agreed that settlement of this proceeding will avoid further administrative proceedings or\nlitigation and will serve the public interest by promoting safety and protection of the environment,\npursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq. and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, and upon consent and agreement,\nthe Parties hereby agree as follows:\nI. General Provisions:\n1. Respondent acknowledges that as the prior operator of the pipeline facilities subject\nto the Notice, Respondent and the referenced pipeline facilities are subject to the jurisdiction of\nthe Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and the regulations and administrative\norders issued thereunder. For purposes of this Consent Agreement (Agreement), Respondent\nacknowledges that it received proper notice of PHMSA’s action in this proceeding and that the\nNotice states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and\nthe regulations and orders issued thereunder.\n2. After Respondent returns this signed Agreement to PHMSA, the Agency’s\nrepresentative will present it to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, recommending that\nthe Associate Administrator adopt the terms of this Agreement by issuing an administrative order\n(Consent Order) incorporating the terms of this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement constitute\nan offer of settlement until accepted by the Associate Administrator. Once accepted, the Associate\nAdministrator will issue a Consent Order incorporating the terms of this Agreement.\n3. Respondent consents to the issuance of the Consent Order, and hereby waives any\nfurther procedural requirements with respect to its issuance. Respondent waives all rights to\ncontest the adequacy of notice, or the validity of the Consent Order or this Agreement, including\nall rights to administrative or judicial hearings or appeals, except for the Dispute Resolution\nprovisions set forth herein. Respondent agrees to withdraw its request for an administrative\nhearing regarding the Notice.\n4. This Agreement shall apply to and be binding upon PHMSA and Respondent, its\nofficers, directors, and employees, and its successors, assigns, or other entities or persons\notherwise bound by law. Respondent agrees to provide a copy of this Agreement and any\nincorporated work plans and schedules to all of Respondent’s officers, employees, and agents\nwhose duties might reasonably include compliance with this Agreement.\n5. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete and exclusive agreement and\nunderstanding between the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in this Agreement. The\nParties acknowledge that there are no representations, agreements or understandings relating to\nsettlement other than those expressly contained in this Agreement, except that the terms of this\nAgreement may be construed by reference to the Notice.\n6. Nothing in this Agreement affects or relieves Respondent of its responsibility to\ncomply with all applicable requirements of the Federal pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. § 60101, et\nseq., and the regulations and orders issued thereunder. Nothing in this Agreement alters PHMSA’s\nright of access, entry, inspection, and information gathering or PHMSA’s authority to bring\n\n\n\nenforcement actions against Respondent pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, the\nregulations and orders issued thereunder, or any other provision of Federal or State law.\n7. Respondent is no longer the operator of the Gray Oak pipeline system referenced\nherein but retains an ownership interest in the system. Once executed, Respondent will provide a\ncopy of this Agreement to the new operator of the Gray Oak pipeline system and any relevant\nowners. For all future transfers by Respondent of its ownership interest in the Gray Oak pipeline\nsystem referenced herein, Respondent will provide a copy of this Agreement to the prospective\ntransferee at least 30 days prior to such transfer. Respondent will provide written notice of the\ntransfer to the Director no later than 60 days after the transfer occurs.\n8. This Agreement does not waive or modify any Federal, State, or local laws or\nregulations that are applicable to Respondent’s pipeline systems. This Agreement is not a permit,\nor a modification of any permit, under any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations. Respondent\nremains responsible for achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable Federal, State,\nand local laws, regulations and permits.\n9. This Agreement does not create rights in, or grant any cause of action to, any third\nparty not party to this Agreement. The U.S. Department of Transportation is not liable for any\ninjuries or damages to persons or property arising from acts or omissions of Respondent or its\nofficers, employees, or agents carrying out the work required by this Agreement. Respondent\nagrees to hold harmless the U.S. Department of Transportation, its officers, employees, agents,\nand representatives from any and all causes of action arising from any acts or omissions of\nRespondent or its contractors in carrying out any work required by this Agreement.\n10. For the purposes of this Agreement, Respondent neither admits nor denies the\nalleged violations identified in the Notice but agrees to the findings of violation.\n11. Except as set forth herein, this Agreement does not constitute a finding of violation\nof any other federal law or regulation and may not be used in any civil proceeding of any kind as\nevidence or proof of any fact, fault, or liability, or as evidence of a violation of any law, rule,\nregulation, or requirement, except in a proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or\nin future PHMSA enforcement actions.\n12. Upon issuance of the Consent Order, the Parties agree to the following terms.\nII. Findings of Violation:\n13. Item 1 - 49 C.F.R. § 195.202: The Notice alleged that Phillips 66 failed to\nconstruct Breakout Tank #1401 in Karnes County, Texas, in accordance with its comprehensive\nwritten specifications as required by §§ 195.202 and 195.132(b)(3). Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that Phillips 66 failed to properly remove weld slag, debris, and conduct visual inspections\nbefore pre-commissioning vacuum box testing. These failures masked the defects that caused the\naccident, a release of 6.50 barrels of crude oil, which was discovered by the Company four (4)\ndays after the tank was placed into service and contained within facility property. Phillips 66\nconducted a post-accident investigation which determined that a contractor failed to properly\n\n\n\nperform the required inspections of the welds on the bottom plates of the breakout tank resulting\nin the newly constructed tank leaking after being placed in service. The visual examination and\nvacuum box testing performed during the failure investigation revealed 28 weld defects with 17\nconfirmed weld defects requiring repairs. After PHMSA’s inspection and related discussions,\nPhillips 66 conducted inspections of additional tanks at Helena Terminal constructed by the same\ncontractor to ensure similar issues were not present on other tanks. After the Notice was issued,\nPhillips 66 revised its procedures to provide for a separate inspection of the tank bottom weld\nseams by a Company appointed inspector. Upon further discussions between the Parties,\nRespondent, without admitting or denying the allegation, agrees to the finding of violation for\npurposes of this Agreement.\n14. Item 2 - 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(d): The Notice alleged that Phillips 66 failed to install\nthe tank bottom lining in Breakout Tank #1401 in accordance with API RP 652 as required by\n§ 195.579(d) and its written procedures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Phillips 66 failed to\nconduct adequate surface preparation, improperly applied the tank bottom epoxy lining, failed to\nproperly visually inspect the epoxy lining for holidays after installation, and failed to repair the\ndefects in the epoxy lining. PHMSA maintains that a properly installed lining may have prevented\nthe release. Phillips 66 contested the allegation in the Notice and provided information about its\nefforts to address the identified deficiency on other tanks constructed by the same contractor at\nHelena Terminal. Upon further discussions between the Parties, Respondent, without admitting\nor denying the allegation, agrees to the finding of violation for purposes of this Agreement.\n15. Items 1 and 2 will be considered by PHMSA as prior offenses in any future PHMSA\nenforcement action taken against Respondent for the five (5)-year period following the Effective\nDate of this Agreement.\nIII. Warning Item:\n16. Item 3 - 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.307(c) & 195.202: The Notice alleged that Phillips 66\nfailed to perform a hydrostatic test in accordance with its written procedures and API Standard\n650 as required by § 195.307(c) for the breakout tanks at the Wink and Crane, Texas terminals.\nThis Item was issued as a warning. API Standard 650 allows operators to deviate from certain\nhydrostatic testing requirements “[i]f sufficient water to fill the tank is not available.” Phillips 66\nmaintains that it based its determination on a variety of factors, including the cost of hydrotesting,\nthat it lacked “practical access” to a source that could supply a sufficient amount of water and a\nway to dispose of the water once testing was completed. PHMSA acknowledges that Phillips 66\nmanagement approved the deviation but maintains that the decision to forego hydrostatic testing\nwas due to “economic impact,” and not lack of sufficient water. Respondent, without admitting\nor denying the allegation, accepts the warning item for purposes of this Agreement.\n17. As referenced in § 190.205, warnings are complete upon issuance and are not\nadjudicated to determine whether a finding of violation occurred. Therefore, Item 3 does not\nconstitute a finding of violation. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent\ninspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nIV. Civil Penalty:\n\n\n\n18. Item 1: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $276,400\nfor Item 1. Respondent requested a reduction of the proposed civil penalty and PHMSA agrees to\nreduce the civil penalty. The reduction is based on reconsideration of the history of prior offenses\nafter consideration of additional information provided by Respondent. PHMSA finds that\ninformation presented by Respondent indicates this selection should be reduced from “6 or more”\nto “2-3” prior offenses in the five-year period preceding issuance of the Notice. Respondent agrees\nto pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $259,200 for the violation in Item 1.\n19. Item 2: The Notice proposed assessing a civil penalty in the amount of $276,400\nfor Item 2. Respondent requested a reduction of the proposed civil penalty and PHMSA agrees to\nreduce the civil penalty. The reduction is based on reconsideration of gravity and the history of\nprior offenses after consideration of additional information provided by Respondent. With respect\nto gravity, PHMSA reduces the selection from causal to occurred not in an HCA, and removes the\naccident multipliers in recognition that the improperly installed lining may not have been a direct\ncause of the release from the breakout tank. With respect to history of prior offenses, PHMSA\nfinds that information presented by Respondent indicates this selection should be reduced from “6\nor more” to “2-3” prior offenses in the five-year period preceding issuance of the Notice.\nRespondent agrees to pay a reduced civil penalty in the amount of $38,000 for the violation in Item\n2.\n20. Respondent shall pay an adjusted civil penalty in the amount of $297,200, pursuant\nto the payment instructions at 49 C.F.R. § 190.227(a), to be paid in full no later than 20 days from\nthe Effective Date of this Agreement.\nV. Enforcement:\n21. This Agreement is subject to all enforcement authorities available to PHMSA under\n49 U.S.C. § 60101, et seq., and 49 C.F.R. Part 190, including administrative civil penalties under\n49 U.S.C. § 60122, of up to $257,664 per violation for each day the violation continues and referral\nof the case to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, if PHMSA determines that Respondent\nis not complying with the terms of this Agreement in accordance with the determinations made by\nthe Director, or in accordance with decisions of the Associate Administrator if resolved pursuant to\nthe Dispute Resolution process herein. The maximum civil penalty amounts are adjusted annually\nfor inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\nVI. Dispute Resolution:\n22. The Director and Respondent will informally attempt to resolve any disputes arising\nunder this Agreement. If Respondent and the Director are unable to informally resolve the dispute\nwithin 15 calendar days after the dispute is first raised, in writing, to the Director, Respondent may\nsubmit a written request for a determination resolving the dispute from the Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety, PHMSA. Such request must be made in writing and provided to the Director,\ncounsel for the Southwest Region, and to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, no later\nthan 10 calendar days from the 15-day deadline for informal resolution referenced in this\nparagraph. Along with its request, Respondent must provide the Associate Administrator with all\ninformation Respondent believes is relevant to the dispute. Decisions of the Associate\nAdministrator under this paragraph will constitute final agency action. The existence of a dispute\n\n\n\nand PHMSA’s consideration of matters placed in dispute will not excuse, toll, or suspend any term\nor timeframe for completion of any work to be performed under this Agreement during the\npendency of the dispute resolution process.\nVII. Effective Date:\n23. The term “Effective Date,” as used herein, is the date on which the Consent Order\nis issued by the Associate Administrator, PHMSA, incorporating the terms of this Agreement.\nVIII. Recordkeeping and Information Disclosure:\n24. Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, Respondent agrees to maintain\nrecords demonstrating compliance with all requirements of this Agreement for a period of at least\nfive (5) years following completion of all work to be performed. For any reports, plans, or other\ndeliverables required to be submitted to PHMSA pursuant to this Agreement, Respondent may\nassert a claim of business confidentiality or other protections applicable to the release of\ninformation by PHMSA, covering part or all of the information required to be submitted to\nPHMSA pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7. Respondent must mark\nthe claim of confidentiality in writing on each page, and include a statement specifying the grounds\nfor each claim of confidentially. PHMSA determines release of any information submitted\npursuant to this Agreement in accordance with 49 C.F.R. Part 7, the Freedom of Information Act,\n5 U.S.C. § 552, DOT and PHMSA policies, and other applicable regulations and Executive Orders.\nIX. Modification:\n25. The terms of this Agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties.\nSuch modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties.\nX. Termination:\n26. The Agreement shall not terminate until the Director confirms, in writing, that the\nAgreement is terminated in accordance with this paragraph. Nothing in this Agreement prevents\nRespondent from completing any of the obligations earlier than the deadlines provided for in this\nAgreement.\nXI. Ratification:\n27. The Parties’ undersigned representatives certify that they are fully authorized to\nenter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind such party\nto this document.\n28. The Parties hereby agree to all findings, conditions, and terms of this Agreement.\n[Signature Lines on Following Page]\n\n\n\nFor Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC:\n_______________________\nManny H. Cortez\nPresident, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC\n________________________\nDate\nFor PHMSA:\n________________________________________\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\n________________________\nDate","truncated":false,"body_characters":28482}