{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42025003NOA","title":"INLAND CORPORATION — Notice of Amendment","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2025-05-08","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of amendment citing 195.452(b)(1)(ii).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025003noa.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025003noa.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025003noa","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42025003NOA","body":"Notice of Amendment involving INLAND CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.452(b)(1)(ii). The case was opened on 2025-05-08 and is reported as closed as of 2026-01-20. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42025003NOA_Closure Letter_01202026_(24-316529).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Closure%20Letter_01202026_(24-316529).pdf\n\n42025003NOA_Closure Letter_01202026_(24-316529)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Closure%20Letter_01202026_(24-316529)_text.pdf\n\n42025003NOA_Notice of Amendment_05082025_(24-316529).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_05082025_(24-316529).pdf\n\n42025003NOA_Notice of Amendment_05082025_(24-316529)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_05082025_(24-316529)_text.pdf\n\n42025003NOA_Operator Response to Notice_07072025_(24-316529).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_07072025_(24-316529).pdf\n\n42025003NOA_Order Directing Amendment_11202025_(24-316529).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_11202025_(24-316529).pdf\n\n42025003NOA_Order Directing Amendment_11202025_(24-316529)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_11202025_(24-316529)_text.pdf\n\n42025003NOA_Closure Letter_01202026_(24-316529)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nJanuary 20, 2026\nThomas Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\n8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630\nHouston TX 77074\nCPF 4-2025-003-NOA\nDear Mr. Long:\nOn November 20, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),\nOffice of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued to Inland Corporation, an Order Directng Amendment in\nthe above-referenced case.\nInland, through its parent company Energy Transfer, LP, submitted its amended procedures on\nDecember 18, 2025. My staff reviewed the amended procedure, and it appears that the inadequacy\noutlined in this Notice of Amendment has been corrected.\nThis letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank\nyou for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: Greg McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ngregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nEric Amundsen, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\neric.amundsen@energytransfer.com\nTodd Stamm, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd.stamm@energytransfer.com\nDaniel Wentworth, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ndaniel.wentworth@energytransfer.com\n\n\n\nJennifer Street, Senior Vice President of Operations Services, Energy Transfer, LP,\njennifer.street@energytransfer.com\nKeegan Pieper, Deputy General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,\nkeegan.pieper@energytransfer.com\nMatthew Stork, Vice President of Tech Services, Energy Transfer, LP,\nmatthew.stork@energytransfer.com\nTodd Nardozzi, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com\nSusie Sjulin, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\nsusie.sjulin@energytransfer.com\n2\n\n42025003NOA_Notice of Amendment_05082025_(24-316529)_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF AMENDMENT\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nMay 8, 2025\nMr. Thomas Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75225\nCPF 4-2025-003-NOA\nDear Mr. Long:\nFrom August 6, 2024, to December 12, 2024, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter\n601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Inland Corporation’s1 (Inland) Integrity\nManagement Program procedures.\nAs a result of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacy found within Inland’s\nprocedures. The item inspected and the inadequacy is described below:\n1. § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage\npipeline integrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section\nmust:\n(1) Develop a written integrity management program that\naddresses the risks on each segment of pipeline in the first column of\nthe following table no later than the date in the second column: . . . .\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n—\n1 Energy Transfer, LP, has a controlling financial interest in Inland Corporation.\n\n\n\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions in the pipeline that the operator\ndiscovers through the integrity assessment or information analysis. In\naddressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous\nconditions and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's\nintegrity, as required by this part. An operator must be able to\ndemonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure that the\ncondition is unlikely to pose a threat to the long-term integrity of the\npipeline. An operator must comply with all other applicable\nrequirements in this part in remediating a condition. Each operator\nmust, in repairing its pipeline systems, ensure that the repairs are\nmade in a safe and timely manner and are made so as to prevent\ndamage to persons, property, or the environment. The calculation\nmethod(s) used for anomaly evaluation must be applicable for the\nrange of relevant threats.\n(i) . . . .\n(ii) Long-term pressure reduction. When a pressure reduction\nexceeds 365 days, the operator must notify PHMSA in accordance\nwith paragraph (m) of this section and explain the reasons for the\ndelay. An operator must also take further remedial action to ensure\nthe safety of the pipeline.\nInland’s written integrity management program was inadequate to provide for safe operation of a\npipeline facility in accordance with § 195.452(h)(1)(ii). Specifically, Inland’s Pipeline Integrity\nManagement Plan (IMP)2\n, ETC Hazardous Liquids IMP (Rev. 10, Sept. 20, 2024), Section 7.3:\nDiscovery of a Condition, failed to describe how it would determine further remedial actions to\nensure the safety of the pipeline when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days in accordance with\n§ 195.452(h)(1)(ii).\nSection 7.3 re-states the regulatory requirement in § 195.452(h)(1)(ii) to take further remedial\nactions to ensure pipeline safety when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days, but does not describe\nhow further remedial actions are determined to ensure the safety of the pipeline.\nTherefore, Inland must revise its integrity management program to describe how further remedial\naction is determined to ensure the safety of the pipeline when a pressure reduction exceeds 365\ndays in accordance with § 195.452(h)(1)(ii).\nResponse to this Notice\nThis Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as\npart of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement\nProceedings.\n2 Inland Corporation and Energy Transfer, LP share an Integrity Management Plan.\n\n\n\nPlease refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you\nsubmit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you\nbelieve that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5\nU.S.C. § 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of\nthe document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an\nexplanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under\n5 U.S.C. § 552(b).\nFollowing the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised\nprocedures, or a request for a hearing under § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice\nand authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice\nwithout further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or\nprocedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans\nor procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this\nNotice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of\nreceipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the\ninadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement\naction will be closed.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Inland Corporation maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of\nplans, procedures) and submit the total to Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter, please\nrefer to CPF 4-2025-003-NOA and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in\nelectronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nBryan Lethcoe\nDirector, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings\ncc: Greg McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ngregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com\nEric Amundsen, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\neric.amundsen@energytransfer.com\nTodd Stamm, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd.stamm@energytransfer.com\nJennifer Street, Senior Vice President of Operations Services, Energy Transfer, LP,\n\n\n\njennifer.street@energytransfer.com\nKeegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,\nkeegan.pieper@energytransfer.com\nMathew Stork, Vice President of Tech Services, Energy Transfer, LP,\nmathew.stork@energytransfer.com\nTodd Nardozzi, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com\nSusie Sjulin, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\nsusie.sjulin@energytransfer.com\n\n42025003NOA_Order Directing Amendment_11202025_(24-316529)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nNovember 20, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nThomas Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n8111 Westchester Drive\nDallas, Texas 75227\nRe: CPF No. 4-2025-003-NOA\nDear Mr. Long:\nEnclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It\nmakes findings of inadequate procedures and requires Inland Corporation to amend certain\nprocedures. When the amendment of procedures has been completed, as determined by the\nDirector, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order\nDirecting Amendment by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement\nof receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nTodd Nardozzi, Director – DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer,\ntodd.nardozzi@energytransfer.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 )\nInland Corporation, ) CPF No. 4-2025-003-NOA\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )\nRespondent. )\n)\n)\n)\n)\n)\n____________________________________)\nORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT\nFrom August 6 to December 12, 2024, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Inland Corporation’s (Inland) Integrity Management\nProgram procedures. Energy Transfer, LP, (Energy Transfer or Respondent) has a controlling\nfinancial interest in Inland Corporation.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, PHMSA Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Inland by\nletter dated May 8, 2025, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR §\n190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Inland’s integrity management program and\nproposed that Inland amend its procedures.\nEnergy Transfer, on behalf of Inland, responded to the Notice on January 15, 2024 (Response).\nIn its Response, Energy Transfer contested the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and\ntherefore waived its right to one. On August 4, 2025, the Director provided a Region\nRecommendation recommending that PHMSA issue an Order Directing Amendment to Inland as\nproposed in the Notice.\nFINDING OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Inland’s written integrity management program was inadequate\nto ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility in accordance with section 195.452(h)(1)(ii).\n1 Inland Corporation, Energy Transfer, https://nsletconnect.energytransfer.com/ipost/IC (last accessed August 18,\n2025).\n\n\n\n2\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Inland’s integrity management plan (IMP),2 ETC Hazardous\nLiquids IMP (Rev. 10, Sept. 20, 2024), Section 7.3, Discovery of a Condition, restated the\nregulatory requirement in section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) to take further remedial actions to ensure\npipeline safety when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days, but did not describe how further\nremedial actions are determined. The Notice proposed ordering Inland to revise its IMP to\ndescribe, when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days, how further remedial action is\ndetermined to ensure the safety of the pipeline.\nEnergy Transfer Response\nEnergy Transfer contested the allegation in the Notice in its Response for three reasons. First,\nEnergy Transfer argued that the IMP complies with section 195.452(h)(1)(ii), because “[t]he\nplain language of § 195.452(h)(1)(ii) does not require an operator to describe in its procedures or\nplans ‘how’ further remedial action is determined to ensure the safety of the pipeline when a\npressure reduction exceeds 365 days.” Energy Transfer further asserted that because\n“[s]ituations wherein a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days vary greatly as do the conditions for\nwhich the pressure reduction was initially implemented[,] . . . the additional actions an operator\nmay elect to take when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days can vary greatly as well.” Energy\nTransfer quoted from the preamble to the final rule prescribing section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) to\nsupport these positions, noting that PHMSA acknowledged that “[t]he rule provides the operator\nflexibility to determine the most appropriate action to take.”\nSecond, Energy Transfer asserted that PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance “does not indicate that\nan operator must describe in in [sic] its procedures or plans ‘how’ further remedial action is\ndetermined to ensure the safety of the pipeline when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days.”\nEnergy Transfer also noted that PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance only lists as examples of a\nprobable violation, or inadequate procedures related to section 195.452(h)(1)(ii): “1) ‘failure to\ntake additional remedial actions when a pressure reduction exceeded 365 days’ and 2) ‘a failure\nto notify PHMSA when a pressure reduction exceeded 365 days.’” Energy Transfer argued that\nthe violation alleged in the Notice is not like the examples noted in the Enforcement Guidance\nand should be withdrawn.\nThird, Energy Transfer argued that it found no prior PHMSA enforcement actions related to\nsection 195.452(h)(1)(ii). The lack of prior enforcement, Energy Transfer stated, means that\n“industry has no reasonable and fair methodology to determine PHMSA’s position on the matter\nand to measure such position against its own procedures and plans to ensure it is in compliance\nwith the plain language of the regulation and the PHMSA expectation as to how §\n195.452(h)(1)(ii) should be implemented by the industry.”\nDirector’s Region Recommendation\nThe Director recommended that PHMSA issue an Order Directing Amendment as proposed in\nthe Notice in the Region Recommendation. As to Energy Transfer’s first argument, the Director\nexplained that a procedure which simply parrots the language of a regulation can be deemed\n“inadequate to assure safe operation of a pipeline facility” under section 190.206. The Director\n2 Inland Corporation and Energy Transfer share an integrity management plan.\n\n\n\n3\ncited prior PHMSA enforcement cases to support that proposition and stated that the evidence of\nrecord substantiates the inadequacy of Energy Transfer’s IMP. Specifically, the Director noted\nthat Inland identified increased right-of-way (ROW) patrols as the further remedial action taken\nafter exceeding the 365-day pressure reduction limit, but that the record showed that Inland did\nnot actually perform any increased ROW patrols. Rather, Inland continued to conduct ROW\npatrols at the same frequency as before reaching the 365-day limit. According to the Director,\nInland’s “‘further remedial action’ . . . was . . . a holding pattern from before the pressure\nrestriction exceeded 365 days as opposed to additional or greater action,” which “affirm[ed]\nSouthwest Region’s position that Inland’s procedures lack sufficient detail to ensure that further\nremedial action is implemented and verified.”\nThe Director also stated that the quoted language from the preamble to the final rule did not\nundermine the allegations in the Notice. The Director acknowledged that operators have\nsignificant discretion in determining the “further remedial actions” that should be taken under\nsection 195.452(h)(1)(ii) but noted that Inland had not provided “any description of how such a\ndetermination could be made” in its IMP. The Director stated the IMP needed to include that\ninformation, particularly for the further remedial actions that may be required after exceeding the\n365-day limit as “anomaly conditions can change in a year and may require a different response\nthan whatever the operator has done so far.”\nRegarding Energy Transfer’s second argument, the Director observed that PHMSA’s\nEnforcement Guidance for section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) did not absolve Inland of its obligation to\nhave adequate procedures. The Director explained that PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance does\nnot limit his discretion to initiate an enforcement action for an alleged violation and that, in any\nevent, the Enforcement Guidance for section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) lists “omissions or deficiencies in\nthe information used in making decisions in regards to anomalous conditions that require\nremediation” as an example of a procedural inadequacy. Inland’s failure to include anything in\nits IMP about the information that should be used in making determinations concerning the\nfurther remedial actions to be taken after exceeding the 365-day limit qualifies as such an\nomission or deficiency.\nFinally, as to Energy Transfer’s third argument, the Director stated that PHMSA’s enforcement\nhistory supports the allegations in the Notice. While recognizing that PHMSA had not previously\nissued an order directing amendment to an operator for having inadequate procedures under\nsection 195.452(h)(1)(ii), the Director pointed to other comparable cases involving inadequate\nprocedures under sections 195.452(g)(1)-(4) and 195.404(c)(3). The Director argued that these\ncases demonstrate that Inland did not have adequate procedures in its IMP for implementing the\nrequirements in section 195.452(h)(1)(ii).\nAnalysis\nHaving considered the record and the factors in section 190.206(b)(1)-(4),\n3 I find that Inland did\n3 Section 190.206(b)(1)-(4) prescribes the factors that the Associate Administrator may consider “[i]n determining\nthe adequacy of an operator’s plans or procedures.” Id. Those factors include: 1) relevant pipeline safety data; 2)\nwhether the plans or procedures are appropriate for the particular type of pipeline transportation or facility; 3) the\nreasonableness of the plans or procedures; and 4) the extent to which the plans or procedures contribute to public\n\n\n\n4\nnot have adequate procedures in its IMP to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility. It is\nundisputed that section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) requires an operator to “take further remedial action to\nensure the safety of the pipeline” if a pressure reduction taken to address an integrity issue\nexceeds 365 days. It is also undisputed that Inland had an obligation to include a procedure in its\nIMP for implementing section 195.452(h)(1)(ii), and that Inland’s procedure did nothing more\nthan parrot or restate the language in section 195.452(h)(1)(ii). The sole issue to be decided in\nthis case is whether such a procedure is adequate to ensure the safe operation of Inland’s\npipeline facilities under section 190.206.\nThe Director stands behind the allegations in the Notice, noting that PHMSA has said in prior\nenforcement actions initiated under section 190.206 that a “document that simply paraphrases\nPHMSA regulations and guidance and lacks the specificity necessary to show consideration of\nthe unique features of an operator’s system does not constitute an adequate procedure.”4 Energy\nTransfer takes the opposite position, arguing that an IMP is adequate under section 190.206 so\nlong as Inland—and presumably every other pipeline operator—has a procedure that simply\nparrots or restates the text of section 195.452(h)(1)(ii). The Director’s argument is more\npersuasive.\nFirst, the obligation to develop and implement a written IMP would serve no useful purpose if an\noperator need only reiterate the text of section 195.452. Indeed, the written IMP would be\nentirely redundant if that is all that section 195.452 required as an operator could achieve\ncompliance simply by printing out a written version of the regulation. The text, structure,\npurpose, and history of section 195.452 make clear that an operator must do more to meet its\nobligation to develop and implement a written IMP.\nSecond, the evidence of record demonstrates why a written IMP that simply parrots or restates\nthe language of section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) is inadequate. Inland had such language in its IMP and\nfailed to take any further remedial action to ensure the safety of its pipeline after exceeding the\n365-day limit. While claiming to have implemented increased ROW patrols, the evidence\nindicates that Inland continued to perform ROW patrols at the same frequency.5 In other words,\nas the Director explained in his Region Recommendation, Inland’s “‘further remedial action’ . . .\nwas . . . a holding pattern from before the pressure restriction exceeded 365 days as opposed to\nadditional or greater action.” Having failed to provide its personnel with any additional\ninstruction on the factors that should be considered or the process that should be followed in\nmaking that decision, Inland’s failure to implement any further remedial action after exceeding\nthe 365-day limit is unsurprising.\nThird, Energy Transfer’s argument that section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) provides operators with\nsafety. Id.; see also 49 U.S.C. § 60109(c)(9)(A)(iii) (“If the Secretary determines that a risk analysis or integrity\nmanagement program does not comply with the requirements of this subsection or regulations issued as described in\nparagraph (2), has not been adequately implemented, or is inadequate for the safe operation of a pipeline facility, the\nSecretary may conduct proceedings under this chapter”)\n4 In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, 2013 WL 5305819, at *8 (finding an operators procedures\nimplementing § 195.452(i)(1) inadequate to assure the safe operation of a pipeline facility).\n5 Case File Exhibit A-3_Operator Emails_RE_ Regarding SRCR23-284972_12122024.\n\n\n\n5\nflexibility in determining the further remedial actions that should be taken is unavailing. The\nregulation does in fact provide operators with that flexibility—a point that the Director concedes\nin his Region Recommendation—but that does not mean that an operator can satisfy the “further\nremedial action” requirement in section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) by doing anything it wants—or, in this\ncase, by doing nothing at all.6 PHMSA has made clear that “whatever action is taken by an\noperator” must be “adequate to resolve the integrity concern on the pipeline for the long term.”7\nFor that reason, the written IMP must provide personnel with instruction on the factors that\nshould be considered or the process that should be followed in making a decision about the\nfurther remedial action that is required to satisfy section 195.452(h)(1)(ii). Inland clearly failed\nto provide that instruction in its IMP.\nFourth, Energy Transfer’s arguments regarding PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance fares no\nbetter. PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance is not intended to diminish or otherwise affect the\nauthority of PHMSA to carry out its statutory, regulatory, or other official functions or to\ncommit PHMSA to taking any action that is subject to its discretion.8 Furthermore, as the\nDirector noted in his Region Recommendation, PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance for section\n195.452(h)(1) includes “omissions or deficiencies in the information used in making decisions in\nregards to anomalous conditions that require remediation” as an example of a probable violation\nor procedural inadequacy.9 Inland’s IMP provides no instruction on the decision-making process\nthat personnel should use in satisfying the “further remedial action” requirement in section\n195.452(h)(1), and the Enforcement Guidance itself provided Inland with fair notice that such an\nomission or deficiency could render its IMP inadequate.\nFinally, Energy Transfer’s argument regarding the lack of prior enforcement actions under\nsection 195.452(h)(1)(ii) is unpersuasive. PHMSA is required to review the adequacy of an\noperator’s integrity management procedures,10 and this case is nothing more than a\nstraightforward application of the criteria that apply in conducting those reviews to Inland’s\nIMP.\n11 Moreover, as the Director observed in his Region Recommendation, PHMSA has been\n6 Energy Transfer’s suggestion that the “further remedial action” requirement in § 195.452(h)(1)(ii) can be satisfied\nby “simply continuing to maintain the pressure reduction” is incorrect. The language of the regulation makes clear\nthat “[a]n operator must also take further remedial action to ensure the safety of the pipeline” after notifying\nPHMSA that the pressure reduction has exceeded the 365-day limit. § 195.452(h)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). An\noperator who simply maintains an existing pressure reduction is not “also” taking any “further” remedial action\nwithin the ordinary meaning of either term. See Also, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY,\nhttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/also (defining also as “in addition”) (last accessed August 19,\n2025), and the ordinary meaning of “further” is to a greater distance or degree, or at a more advanced level.” See\nFurther, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/further (defining further\nas “to a greater distance or degree, or at a more advanced level”) (last accessed August 19, 2025).\n7 Pipeline Safety: Pipeline integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Repair Criteria),” 67 FR 1650, 1652\n(Jan. 14, 2002).\n8 “Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management Enforcement Guidance Sections 195.450 and 452”\n(December 7, 2015), at 1, available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement/hazardous-liquid-integrity-\nmanagement-enforcement-guidance (last accessed August 19, 2025).\n9 Id. at 92.\n10 49 U.S.C. § 60109(c)(9)(A)(iii).\n11 49 CFR § 190.206(b)(1)-(4).\n\n\n\n6\nclear in conveying the requirements for operator procedures, including for the adequacy of\nprocedures under section 195.452. PHMSA has also specifically stated in prior enforcement\nactions that failing to have specific procedures for performing an analysis or evaluation and\nmerely paraphrasing PHMSA regulations or guidance does not constitute an adequate IMP.12\nThe fact that those enforcement actions arose under different subsections of section 195.452 or\ninvolved different regulations in Part 195 does not mean that the same principles cannot be\napplied to section 195.452(h)(1)(ii).\nAccordingly, after reviewing the evidence, I find that Inland’s written integrity management\nprogram is inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility in accordance with section\n195.452(h)(1)(ii). Inland is hereby ordered to revise its procedures as specified above. Finalized\nprocedures must be provided to the Southwest Region for review and approval.\nUnder 49 CFR § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC, 20590. The written petition must\ncontain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The\nterms of the Order remain in effect until the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. The terms and conditions of this Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nCFR § 190.5.\nRespondent must amend its procedures, as required above, and submit them to the Director,\nPHMSA Southwest Region, OPS, within 30 days following receipt of this Order. The Director\nmay grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request\ntimely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to\ncomply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties exceeding\n$200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for each\nviolation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\n___________________________________ ______________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n12 In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, 2013 WL 5305819, at *3, 4, 8; see also In the Matter of\nExplorer Pipeline Company, 2015 WL 4882526, at *1-3.","truncated":false,"body_characters":30924}