# DIXIE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 42023049NOPV
- **title:** DIXIE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** current
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2023-08-14
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** OPEN notice of probable violation citing 195.583(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023049nopv.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023049nopv.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42023049nopv
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42023049NOPV
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving DIXIE PIPELINE COMPANY LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.583(a). The case was opened on 2023-08-14 and is reported as open. Proposed civil penalty: $19,600. Assessed civil penalty: $19,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

42023049NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_05292026_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_05292026_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_05292026_(22-232767)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_05292026_(22-232767)_text.pdf

42023049NOPV_Final Order_08292025_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Final%20Order_08292025_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_Final Order_08292025_(22-232767)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Final%20Order_08292025_(22-232767)_text.pdf

42023049NOPV_Op Rsp to Ntc Rq for Hearing Stmt Issues_09132023_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Op%20Rsp%20to%20Ntc%20Rq%20for%20Hearing%20Stmt%20Issues_09132023_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_09182025_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09182025_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_Operator Post-Hearing Brief_05202024_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Brief_05202024_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_Operator Pre-Hearing Submission_04082024_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submission_04082024_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_Operator Response to Decision on Petition_06222026_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Decision%20on%20Petition_06222026_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_PCP_08142023_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_PCP_08142023_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_PCP_08142023_(22-232767)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_PCP_08142023_(22-232767)_text.pdf

42023049NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_03042024_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_03042024_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_03042024_(22-232767)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_03042024_(22-232767)_text.pdf

42023049NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272023_(22-232767).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_09272023_(22-232767).pdf

42023049NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_09272023_(22-232767)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42023049NOPV/42023049NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_09272023_(22-232767)_text.pdf

42023049NOPV_Final Order_08292025_(22-232767)_text.pdf

August 29, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: gbacon@eprod.com
Graham W. Bacon
Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
Dixie Pipeline Company LLC
1100 Louisiana Street
Houston Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2023-049-NOPV
Dear Mr. Bacon:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to Dixie Pipeline
Company LLC. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $19,300. The
penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes
automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon
the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Linda Daugherty
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Zachary Craft, Esq., Counsel for Dixie Pipeline Company LLC, zlcraft@eprod.com
Ms. Brianne Kurdock, Esq., Babst Calland, Counsel to Dixie Pipeline Company LLC,
bkurdock@babstcalland.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 )
Dixie Pipeline Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2023-049-NOPV
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From February 7, 2022 through January 30, 2023, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a
representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted a pipeline safety inspection of Dixie Pipeline Company
LLC’s (Dixie or Respondent) facilities, records, and procedures in Apex, North Carolina; Milner,
Georgia; and Mont Belvieu, Texas. Dixie operates an interstate hazardous liquid pipeline facility
in the Southeast United States.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated August 14, 2023, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil
Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Respondent had committed one violation of 49 CFR Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $21,200 for the alleged violation.
Enterprise Products Operating LLC responded to the Notice on behalf of Dixie by letter dated
September 13, 2024 (Response).1 Respondent contested the allegation of violation and the
proposed civil penalty. Dixie and the Director both submitted additional written material on
April 8, 2024 (Pre-hearing submissions). A hearing was subsequently held on April 18,
2024 in Houston, Texas, before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel,
PHMSA. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing,
Respondent provided additional written material for the record by letter dated May 20, 2024
(Post-hearing submission). The Director provided a recommendation for final order on June 20,
2024 (Recommendation), and Dixie submitted a reply to the Recommendation on July 19, 2024
(Reply).
On June 2, 2025, the Director issued a revised recommendation reducing the proposed penalty to
$19,600 pursuant to the May 20, 2025, PHMSA “Policy for Calculating Proposed Civil Penalties
1 Dixie is a wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Operating LLC.



in Pipeline Safety Enforcement Proceedings.” Dixie responded to the revised civil penalty
recommendation on June 17, 2025.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 195, as follows:
Item 1. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.583(a), which states:
§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?
(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed
to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:
If the pipeline is
located:
Then the frequency of inspection is:
Onshore
At least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not
exceeding 39 months
Offshore
At least once each calendar year, but with intervals not
exceeding 15 months
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 195.583(a) when it failed to inspect portions of its
onshore pipeline system that are exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric
corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
Specifically, Dixie failed to inspect the exposed pipe at the required intervals at three locations:
• Location 124.7008 (Location 124): Dixie did not conduct an atmospheric corrosion inspection
between April 7, 2015 and May 17, 2022;
• Location 125.0193 (Location 125): Dixie had not completed an atmospheric corrosion
inspection since June 25, 2018; and,
• Location 133.0786 (Location 133): Dixie had not completed an atmospheric corrosion
inspection since May 6, 2015.
In its written submissions and at the hearing, Dixie contested Item 1. Respondent first argued
OPS has not met its burden of proof because it has not provided any evidence that the locations
cited in the Notice were exposed to the atmosphere. Respondent asserted the “. . . only evidence
that OPS presented concerning atmosphere exposure were photographs of two of the pipeline
segments taken on May 17, 2022. These photographs do not contradict the information provided
in the atmospheric corrosion control records or establish that either of these segments were
exposed to the atmosphere for the previous 3 years or any other length of time.”2 Dixie also
argued that it lacked fair notice that the allegations in the Notice constituted violations of §
2 Dixie Post-hearing submission at 5.



195.583(a).3 Dixie’s argument relates to its assertions in the record that the three locations
described in the notice are submerged in water or buried and therefore not constantly exposed to
the atmosphere during the 39-month inspection intervals specified by § 195.583(a).4 Dixie
argued § 195.583(a) does not provide operators with notice of any standard for performing
inspections of pipelines that transition between being submerged or buried, and exposed to the
atmosphere.5 In advancing that argument, Respondent posited that § 195.583(a) does not
address submerged pipelines at all, instructing that only those pipelines which are exposed to the
atmosphere must be inspected for atmospheric corrosion.6 Dixie’s Reply also argued that the
Director’s Recommendation raised positions regarding the applicability of § 195.583(a) to the
three locations described in the Notice that were not discussed at the hearing, and therefore the
Director waived or forfeited its ability to advance those discussions in its Recommendation.7 As
addressed in detail further below, Respondent also contested the proposed civil penalty for the
alleged violation.8
The record does not reflect a material dispute over the facts as described in the Notice. Both
parties agree the pipeline segments at issue in this proceeding are sometimes exposed.9 Dixie’s
records indicate it performed atmospheric corrosion inspections at Locations 124 and 125 in
April 2015, and at Location 133 in May 2015.10 The atmospheric inspection history for all three
locations, since the 2015 inspections were performed, is as follows:
• Location 124 - Dixie attempted an atmospheric corrosion inspection at Location 124 in
June 2018, but did not perform the inspection as its records state the segment was
“sumerged [sic] in water”.11 Dixie again attempted to conduct atmospheric corrosion
inspections in July and September 2021, respectively, but did not perform those inspections
due to “high vegitation [sic]”.12 Dixie attempted another atmospheric corrosion inspection
3 Id. at 7-9.
4 Id. Buried or an underwater (submerged) pipeline are not subject to the atmospheric corrosion inspection
requirements of § 195.583(a). Rather, buried or submerged pipelines are subject to other corrosion control
provisions in Subpart H of Part 195.
5 Id. at 7.
6 Id.
7 Dixie Reply at 6-10.
8 See Dixie Post-hearing submission at 9; Dixie Reply at 11-12.
9 Hearing transcript (Transcript) at 75:9-12. Southwest Region Recommendation (Recommendation) at 3.
10 Notice at Exhibit (Exh.) B-1.
11 Notice at Exh. B-2. The spelling of submerged is corrected in the remaining references to such in this Final Order.
12 Notice at Exh. B-3. The spelling of vegetation is corrected in the remaining references to such in this Final Order.
There was discussion during the hearing of the pipeline segments being “silted in” when Dixie attempted to perform



in October 2021, but the inspection was not performed because the location was
“submerged in water”.13 Finally, at the time of PHMSA’s inspection in May 2022,
Respondent performed an atmospheric corrosion inspection and indicated no corrosion was
found.14 Dixie did not perform an atmospheric corrosion inspection at Location 124
between April 2015 and May 2022.
• Location 125 - Dixie performed an atmospheric corrosion inspection at Location 125 in
June 2018, during which no corrosion was found.15 Dixie again attempted to conduct
atmospheric corrosion inspections at Location 125 in July and September 2021,
respectively, but did not perform those inspections due to “high vegetation”.16 Dixie
attempted another atmospheric corrosion inspection in October 2021, but the inspection
was not performed because Location 125 was “submerged in water”.17 Finally, at the time
of PHMSA’s inspection in May 2022, Respondent performed an atmospheric corrosion
inspection and indicated no corrosion was found.18 Dixie did not perform an atmospheric
corrosion inspection at Location 125 between June 2018 and May 2022.
• Location 133 - Dixie attempted an atmospheric corrosion inspection at Location 133 in
June 2018, but did not perform such as its records state the segment was “submerged in
water”.19 Dixie again attempted an atmospheric corrosion inspection at Location 133 in
August 2021, but its records state the segment was again “submerged in water” and so no
inspection was performed.20 Dixie next attempted an atmospheric corrosion inspection at
inspections at the three locations cited in the Notice. See Transcript at 38: 5; 52: 3-8. It appears “silted in” is
another manner to refer to a buried pipeline. However, Dixie’s own records only reflect that “high vegetation” was
found by the employee attempting to perform the atmospheric corrosion inspections. Notice at Exh. B-3. None of
the Dixie representatives that appeared at the hearing conducted those 2021 inspections that were recorded as having
“high vegetation” conditions (Dixie inspection records reflect the inspections were performed by Daniel Maddox).
Dixie’s own inspection records relevant to Locations 124 and 125 make no reference to those segments being
“’silted in”. The most relevant and direct evidence in the record indicates numerous inspections were not performed
due to reason of “high vegetation”. A Dixie representative that appeared at the hearing stated “. . . . the vegetation
was such that the location was acceptable, but not acceptable for purposes of performing the inspection.” Transcript
at 35: 18-22.
13 Notice at Exh. B-3.
14 Dixie Pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2 (at 8).
15 Notice at Exh. B-2.
16 Id. at Exh. B-3.
17 Id.
18 Dixie Pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2 (at 8).
19 Notice at Exh. B-2.
20 Id. at Exh. B-3.



Location 133 in in May 2022, or around the time of PHMSA’s inspection described in the
Notice.
21 Again no inspection was performed in May 2022 because the segment was
“submerged in water”.22 Dixie attempted two more atmospheric corrosion inspections in
October 2022, but did not perform them, first due to a listed reason of “high vegetation,
unable to access,” and next because the segment was again “submerged in water”.23
Therefore, Dixie did not perform an atmospheric corrosion inspection at Location 133 after
May 2015.
Section 195.583(a) requires that any hazardous liquid pipeline or portion of pipeline that “. . . is
exposed to the atmosphere . . . ” must be inspected for evidence of atmospheric corrosion every
three years, not to exceed 39 months between such inspections. For Locations 124 and 125,
there is substantial evidence in the record indicating that those two pipeline segments were
exposed to the atmosphere during the relevant time period implicated by the Notice, and
therefore were subject to atmospheric corrosion inspection requirements in § 195.583(a).
First, OPS physically viewed Location 124 during its May 2022 inspection and took photographs
of the pipeline segment, showing the pipeline was exposed (the bottom portion of the pipe is
partially sitting in what appears to be standing water or a creek- or ditch-bed).24 Further, Dixie’s
own records indicate that in 2021, the pipeline was also not submerged or buried.25 Rather, the
inspections records presented by both the Director and Dixie in this matter reflect that Dixie did
not perform two attempted inspections in 2021 due to the presence “high vegetation.”26 There is
no exception described in § 195.583 to performing the required atmospheric corrosion
inspections on an exposed pipeline due to the presence of “high vegetation.” Both in 2015 and
2022, Respondent was able to successfully perform the required atmospheric corrosion
inspections at Locations 124 and 125 which also indicates the pipeline is exposed.27 Dixie’s own
conduct in this matter also gives weight to the assertion that Location 124 is an exposed pipeline
(versus being buried or submerged segments), as evidenced by its atmospheric corrosion
inspection records and its attempts to conduct such inspections at the required three-year
intervals (and its successful performance of such inspections on different occasions).28
21 Dixie pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2 (at 8).
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Southwest Region Pre-hearing submission at Exh. B-4. See also Transcript at 15: 5-9
25 Notice at Exh. B-3.
26 Id.
27 Notice at Exh.’s B-1, B-3; Dixie pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2 (at 8).
28 See Dixie Pre-hearing submission at 4; Transcript at 14: 13-22; 19: 10-17; 65: 9-16; Notice at Exh.’s B-1 through
B-3; Dixie pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2.



Next, similar to Location 124, PHMSA also viewed Location 125 during its May 2022
inspection and took photographs of the pipeline segment that are in the record in this matter,
showing the pipe was exposed (top of the pipe visible amidst what appears to be mowed down
vegetation).29 Further, Dixie’s own records indicate that in 2021 on two occasions when it
attempted to perform the inspections but ultimately did not, that the pipeline was not submerged
or buried.30 Rather, the inspections records reflect that Dixie did not perform two attempted
2021 inspections due to “high vegetation.”31 There is no exception in § 195.583 to performing
the required atmospheric corrosion inspections on an exposed pipeline due to the presence of
“high vegetation.” In 2015, 2018, and 2022, respectively, Respondent was able to successfully
perform the required atmospheric corrosion inspections, evidencing that the pipeline was
exposed.32 Dixie’s own conduct also indicates it considered Location 125 to be exposed to the
atmosphere (versus being buried or submerged segments), as evidenced by its atmospheric
corrosion inspection records and its attempts to conduct such inspections at the required three-
year intervals.33
However, there is a lack of evidence in the record indicating that Location 133 is still an exposed
pipeline. Unlike for locations 124 and 125, no photographs of the location evidencing its status
as an exposed pipeline were presented by OPS, and it is not clear from the record in this matter
whether any PHMSA inspection staff physically visited Location 133 and observed that it was
indeed an exposed pipeline.34 Also in contrast with Locations 124 and 125, Dixie’s own records
indicate that at the time of the attempted 2018, 2021, and May 2022 inspections, the pipeline at
Location 133 was submerged.35 The only point after Dixie’s May 2015 inspection in which
there is any evidence to show the pipeline was an exposed was during an October 2022
attempted inspection that reflects “high vegetation” was present.36 However, that inspection was
conducted after the May 2022 inspection timeframe for the allegation of violation described in
the Notice. That October 2022 inspection was also not reflected in the exhibits accompanying
the Notice.
37 In sum, I find that OPS has not satisfied its burden of prove that Location 133 was
29 Southwest Region Pre-hearing submission at Exh. B-4. See also Transcript at 15: 5-9.
30 Notice at Exh. B-3.
31 Id.
32 Notice at Exh.’s B-1, B-2; Dixie pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2.
33 See Dixie Pre-hearing submission at 4; Transcript at 14: 13-22; 19: 10-17; 65: 9-16; Notice at Exh.’s B-1 through
B-3; Dixie pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2.
34 See Transcript at 15: 5-9. The Notice also does not specify that Location 133 was physically observed during
PHMSA’s May 2022 inspection.
35 Notice at Exh.’s B-2, B-3; Dixie pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2.
36 Dixie pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2.
37 See Notice at Exh.’s B-1 through B-3.



an exposed pipeline subject to the required atmospheric corrosion inspections under § 195.583
after May 2015.
At the time of PHMSA’s May 2022 inspection, and as based on the date of its last atmospheric
corrosion inspections in 2015, Location 124 should have been inspected at least twice since
2015 (e.g., no later than in July 2018 and October 2021) via the permissible 39-month maximum
interval.38 As based on the date of its June 2018 atmospheric corrosion inspection, Location 125
should have been inspected at least once more (no later than September 2021) via 39-month
maximum by the time of PHMSA’s 2022 inspection.
39 Neither Location 124 nor 125 was buried
or submerged at the time of certain attempted 2021 atmospheric corrosion inspections listed
above.40 Dixie’s records instead indicate there was only “high vegetation” at those two
locations.41 Therefore, the required atmospheric corrosion inspections of the exposed pipeline
segments at Locations 124 and 125 were not completed within the intervals required by §
195.583 or by commencement of PHMSA’s 2022 inspection.
Dixie’s argument in relation to the applicability of § 195.583(a) to situations where a pipeline
may sometimes be submerged would add specificity or exception language to the regulation text
that does not exist (e.g., that the regulation only applies to pipeline segments that are always or
constantly exposed; are exposed during the entirety of a 39-month maximum atmospheric
corrosion inspection interval, etc.). Section 195.583(a) was adopted in a 2001 DOT final rule,
and simply requires that any pipeline that “. . . is exposed . . . ” to the atmosphere is subject to the
atmospheric corrosion inspection requirements in that section.42 The regulation text contains no
exceptions, nor adjusts the inspection intervals should a pipeline temporarily be submerged. The
regulation also does not state that a pipeline must not be submerged at any point during the
entirety of a 39-month interval in order that the atmospheric corrosion inspection requirement
applies. In short, the language of § 195.583(a) is unambiguous.
Dixie’s argument regarding a pipeline that might sometimes be submerged and therefore also
unable to be visually inspected is not persuasive to overcome the lack of performance of required
inspections in this matter. Dixie’s own records indicate that the pipelines were not always
submerged at the time of attempted atmospheric corrosion inspections, but rather were just
38 49 CFR § 195.583(a).
39 Id.
40 Notice at Exh. B-3.
41 Id.
42 Controlling Corrosion on Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines 66 Fed. Reg. 66,994, 67,001 (Dec. 27,
2001).



obscured by “high vegetation.”43 In other instances, the pipeline segments at Locations 124 and
125 were indeed exposed and actually inspected as required.44 OPS also physically observed
that those two locations were exposed during its May 2022 inspection and had not been
inspected within a previous 39-month period.
45
Next, § 195.583 contemplates situations relevant under the facts of this case. Paragraph (b) of
that section addresses that particular attention in the conduct of the required atmospheric
inspections must be paid to pipelines at soil-to-air interfaces, in splash zones, and in spans over
water, among others. These situations contemplate potential submergence of exposed pipes at
various junctures. The final rule adopting § 195.583 actually discussed the visual inspections of
“
. . . pipe spans over creeks and ravines . . .,” and did not reflect any exceptions to visual
inspection requirements in such situations.
46 Dixie was also not so limited to only the
performance of a visual inspection for atmospheric corrosion of the three segments cited in the
Notice. The final rule promulgating § 195.583 stated that section does not exclusively require
visual inspections.47 DOT stated pipeline operators are not limited to using visual means of
inspection, rather “. . . any means capable of detecting atmospheric corrosion . . .” may be
permissible to satisfy the atmospheric corrosion inspection requirements of that section.
48 The
record does not indicate Dixie attempted any other atmospheric corrosion inspections when it
chose not to conduct scheduled visual inspections at Locations 124 or 125 due to the presence of
“high vegetation”.49 Nor does the record reflect that Dixie took any action to address the
presence of the “high vegetation” to perform the visual inspections.50
Respondent argues that it lacked fair notice of the requirements of § 195.583(a) as to a pipeline
that may sometimes be submerged.51 As discussed above, however, the plain language of §
43 See, e.g., Notice at Exh. B-3
44 See, e.g., Notice at Exh.’s B-1 and B-2.
45 Southwest Region Pre-hearing submission at Exh. B-4. See also Transcript at 15: 5-9.
46 66 Fed. Reg. at 67,001. The relevant discussion was in relation to a pipeline operator’s concern over bank
erosion.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 See Notice at Exh.’s B-2 and B-3; Transcript at 35: 18-22.
50 See In the Matter of ExxonMobil Pipeline Co., Final Order, CPF No. 1-2013-5008, 2016 WL 8315622 (Sept. 30,
2016), where PHMSA found a violation of § 195.583(a) occurred when rocks obstructed a pipeline operator’s visual
inspection of an exposed pipeline segment and were not removed during the conduct of such inspection.
51 Respondent additionally asserts that at some point in time, every pipeline is exposed to the atmosphere, giving
examples of a pipe being uncovered to conduct a repair, or prior to a pipe’s installation. See Reply at 4-5. I disagree
that the inspection intervals § 195.583 apply to such situations, noting that pipeline construction requirements are
governed by the requirements in Subpart D of Part 195, and repairs of buried pipeline segments are generally



195.583 contains no exception to performing the required atmospheric corrosion inspections for
a pipeline segment that is exposed. The regulation text and the rulemaking documents
promulgating the requirement to conduct atmospheric corrosion inspection address situations
such as water crossings and splash zones. Respondent’s own conduct also undercuts its
assertion, in that its records indicate its successful inspections of the relevant exposed segments
for atmospheric corrosion in the past, and indeed within the required three-year intervals
specified in § 195.583(a), and its regular attempts to do so at those intervals.52
Further, the record also reflects that past publicly available PHMSA enforcement matters where
PHMSA had warned pipeline operators about their failure to conduct atmospheric inspections in
situations where pipelines may be temporarily submerged, analogous to this case.
53 Both cases
involved instances where exposed pipeline segments, which were submerged at the time of
inspection by small streams, had not been inspected for atmospheric corrosion and were not
included in the respective operators’ list of segments requiring such inspections.54 OPS’
allegation in those matters for exposed pipeline segments were consistent with the plain language
of § 195.583 and also with the facts of this matter. PHMSA’s past guidance on this point has
also been posted to the agency’s public website for many years and is cited by both parties in this
matter.
55 That guidance mirrors the text of § 195.583, and it addresses exposed water crossing
situations as being subject to the requirements of that section, and that particular attention must
be paid to the conduct of atmospheric corrosion inspections in such situations.
56
Respondent also argues that OPS did not challenge evidence presented by Dixie at the hearing,
and therefore on the basis of two past PHMSA enforcement cases OPS has not met its burden of
proof and that the allegation in the Notice should be withdrawn.57 However, those matters are
governed by the Operations and Maintenance and requirements found in Subpart F. Unlike in the particular matter
at issue here, there is no evidence § 195.583 has ever applied, or was intended to apply, to such situations.
52 See Dixie Pre-hearing submission at 4; Transcript at 14: 13-22; 19: 10-17; 65: 9-16; Notice at Exh.’s B-1 through
B-3; Dixie pre-hearing submission, Attachment 2
53 See In the Matter of Marathon Pipe Line, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 3-2007-5024, 2008 WL 5264711 (Nov. 7,
2008): https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320075024; and, In the Matter of BP Pipelines (North
America), Inc., Final Order, CPF No. 3-2009-5009, 2011 WL 2937936 (June 14, 2011):
https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320095009.
54 Id.
55 PHMSA Corrosion Enforcement Guidance Part 195, at 93-98 (June 22, 2016),
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Corrosion_Enforcement_Guidance_Part195_6_22_2016.
pdf.
56 Id.
57 Dixie cites In the Matter of Rocky Mountain Pipeline System, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2003-5015, 2004 WL
5150202, Final Order (Dec. 23, 2004): https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520035015 and, In the
Matter of ExxonMobil Pipeline Co., Final Order CPF No. 4-2017-5027, 2019 WL 6840343 (Apr. 3, 2019):
https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420175027/420175027_Final%20Order_04032019_text.pdf.



not analogous to the situation here. As discussed above, the Director made an evidentiary
presentation at the hearing proving the occurrence of the alleged violations described in the
Notice. There also does not appear to be any dispute as to material fact in this present matter.58
Rather, there is a disagreement between the Director and Dixie as to the applicability § 195.583
to Respondent’s exposed pipelines as based on those facts. I find that the Director has proved by
a preponderance of the evidence (via evidence accompanying the Notice and discussed at the
hearing as described above) that Dixie violated the requirements of the unambiguous language in
§ 195.583 when it failed to perform atmospheric corrosion inspections at the required intervals at
Locations 124 and 125. The arguments presented by Dixie at the hearing and in its submissions
(as related to other actions taken to address corrosion that are outside the requirements of §
195.583 and as to its rationale in not performing the required inspections at Locations 124 and
124 due to “high vegetation”), do not excuse the conduct of those required inspections, nor
overcome the substantial evidence the Director has entered into the record of the violation.
I next address Respondent’s argument that discussions contained in the Director’s
Recommendation are subject to the doctrine of waiver and forfeiture and should be rejected.59
The regulations governing this proceeding in Part 190 expressly permit the Director to make a
recommendation for final order, and the Recommendation is included as part of the Case File in
this matter.60 Further, hearings conducted under Part 190 are “. . . conducted informally without
strict adherence to rules of evidence.” Dixie had the opportunity to review the Recommendation
and had the opportunity to respond to that document in writing on July 19, 2024 (Reply). The
Recommendation also did not introduce any new facts, evidence, or allegations, but rather
explained the Director’s opinion that Dixie violated § 195.583 as alleged in the Notice and
recommended that I issue a final order in this matter. Some discussions that Dixie cites in the
Director’s Recommendation are recitations of the contents of the publicly available rulemaking
and other documents addressing the applicability of § 195.583 as published in the Federal
Register or that have otherwise long been available on PHMSA’s website (and which Dixie also
cites in its Post-hearing submission). I also disagree with Dixie’s assertion that “. . . OPS states
(without citing to any legal authority) that ‘seasonal, situational, or periodic weather-related
water fluctuations that cause the pipeline to be intermittently covered with water do not excuse
performance of the required inspection’”61 somehow implicates waiver and forfeiture. The
Director appeared to directly address its position at the hearing that the applicable pipeline
segments were exposed and the justifications presented by Dixie did not excuse the performance
of the required inspections.
62
58 The parties agree that the pipeline segments in question may have intermittently been exposed or submerged
during the relevant time periods implicated by PHMSA’s 2022 inspection. There is also no dispute that Dixie
attempted, but did not actually perform, the atmospheric corrosion inspections contemplated by § 195.583 during the
same time period. Notice at Exh.’s B-1 through B-3; Transcript at 24: 12-25; 35: 1-21
59 Reply at 6-10.
60 49 CFR § 190.209(b)(7).
61 Reply at 8.
62 Transcript at 14: 11-25; 15: 1-9.



Next, the same as Dixie cites case law and other legal resources to support its position in its two
Post-hearing submissions, but which Dixie did not discuss at the hearing, the Director’s
Recommendation also cites publicly available regulatory and legal resources in support of its
own Recommendation in this matter. Further, the conduct of the hearing does not alone
constitute the entirety of the record in this case, as evidenced by Dixie’s two additional and
substantive Post-hearing submissions, one of which was actually a response to the
Recommendation. The Director’s position regarding the applicability § 195.583 to Respondent’s
pipeline system and the alleged violation as conveyed in the Notice and the Recommendation
were presented and considered as part of the record and the decision in this matter.
In sum, § 195.583 applies to a pipeline segment that is exposed to the atmosphere. The text of
that section does not contain any limiting exclusions or specify any minimum time periods that a
pipeline must be exposed for inspections to be required. The record in this matter contains
substantial evidence that Locations 124 and 125 are exposed to the atmosphere. While these
segments may sometimes be temporarily submerged due to the rise of water,
63 the facts in
evidence make clear those segments are indeed exposed to the atmosphere and are not
permanently submerged. Their exposure is evidenced by Dixie’s own records showing actual
performance of required atmospheric corrosion inspections in 2015, 2018 and 2022, respectively,
as well as other attempted atmospheric corrosion inspections within required intervals as
required by § 195.583. In several instances listed above where the required atmospheric
corrosion inspections were attempted but not performed at Locations 124 and 125, the pipelines
were not submerged or buried in water. Rather, it was only presence of “high vegetation” that
was recorded as the reason for not performing the inspections. Section 195.583 contains no
exception to the atmospheric corrosion inspection requirements for instances where high
vegetation is present. Also evidencing the exposure of the pipeline segments at Locations 124
and 125 are the photographs and in-person observations made during PHMSA’s May 2022
inspection.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR
§ 195.583(a) by failing to inspect portions of its pipeline system that are exposed to the
atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but
with intervals not exceeding 39 months.
This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action
taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
63 At the hearing, Dixie presented satellite imagery in an attempt to show submerged pipeline segments at various
points in time. However, those photographs are not dispositive, and also are not of the quality or clarity to ascertain
whether the pipeline segments are submerged, or even whether a pipeline segment is even present in the locations
depicted. Further, as discussed above, there is no disagreement between the parties that Locations 124 and 125 were
sometimes submerged during the relevant time periods implicated by the Notice during which atmospheric corrosion
inspections should have been conducted. Therefore, these photographs are not relevant to resolving any factual
dispute between the parties in this matter.



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.64
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 $21,200 for the violations cited above, however the June 2, 2025
revised recommendation reduced the proposed penalty to $19,600.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,200 (reduced to $19,600) for Respondent’s
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) for failing to inspect portions of its pipeline system that are
exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar
years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. Respondent contested the proposed civil
penalty, stating it was unreasonable.65 Respondent explained it had developed a corrosion
control program that sought to address PHMSA requirements related to both atmospheric and
external corrosion control for the three pipeline segments described in the Notice.66 Dixie stated
it applied the provisions in two corrosion control programs relevant to the segments identified in
the Notice, and described cathodic protection- and pressure test-related actions it had taken for
those segments in the past.67 As such, Dixie asserts that, at a minimum, a good faith credit (ten
point reduction) was warranted on the civil penalty worksheet, and states the proposed civil
penalty should have been $2,606.80.68
As discussed above, there is substantial evidence in the record that Respondent committed a
violation of § 195.583(a) when it failed to conduct atmospheric corrosion inspections of two
pipeline segments that are exposed to the atmosphere at least every three years but not more than
39 months apart. The past pressure tests of, and cathodic protection provided to, the pipeline
segments at issue in this matter did not fulfill the specific inspection requirements of
64 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.
65 See Dixie Post-hearing submission at 9; Transcript at 19: 24-25; 20: 1-17; 70: 12-25; 71: 1-25; 72: 1-8. In its
response to the revised recommendation, Dixie reiterated the argumen
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 58098