# INLAND CORPORATION — Notice of Amendment

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

42025003NOA_Closure Letter_01202026_(24-316529).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Closure%20Letter_01202026_(24-316529).pdf

42025003NOA_Closure Letter_01202026_(24-316529)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Closure%20Letter_01202026_(24-316529)_text.pdf

42025003NOA_Notice of Amendment_05082025_(24-316529).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Notice%20of%20Amendment_05082025_(24-316529).pdf

42025003NOA_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

42025003NOA_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

42025003NOA_Order Directing Amendment_11202025_(24-316529).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025003NOA/42025003NOA_Order%20Directing%20Amendment_11202025_(24-316529).pdf

42025003NOA_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

42025003NOA_Closure Letter_01202026_(24-316529)_text.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com
January 20, 2026
Thomas Long
Chief Executive Officer
Energy Transfer, LP
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, Texas 75225
8701 S. Gessner, Suite 630
Houston TX 77074
CPF 4-2025-003-NOA
Dear Mr. Long:
On November 20, 2025, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), issued to Inland Corporation, an Order Directng Amendment in
the above-referenced case.
Inland, through its parent company Energy Transfer, LP, submitted its amended procedures on
December 18, 2025. My staff reviewed the amended procedure, and it appears that the inadequacy
outlined in this Notice of Amendment has been corrected.
This letter is to inform you that no further action is necessary and this case is now closed. Thank
you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Bryan Lethcoe
Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Greg McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
gregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com
Eric Amundsen, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
eric.amundsen@energytransfer.com
Todd Stamm, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
todd.stamm@energytransfer.com
Daniel Wentworth, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
daniel.wentworth@energytransfer.com



Jennifer Street, Senior Vice President of Operations Services, Energy Transfer, LP,
jennifer.street@energytransfer.com
Keegan Pieper, Deputy General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,
keegan.pieper@energytransfer.com
Matthew Stork, Vice President of Tech Services, Energy Transfer, LP,
matthew.stork@energytransfer.com
Todd Nardozzi, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,
todd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com
Susie Sjulin, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,
susie.sjulin@energytransfer.com
2

42025003NOA_Notice of Amendment_05082025_(24-316529)_text.pdf

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com
May 8, 2025
Mr. Thomas Long
Chief Executive Officer
Energy Transfer, LP
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, Texas 75225
CPF 4-2025-003-NOA
Dear Mr. Long:
From August 6, 2024, to December 12, 2024, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter
601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Inland Corporation’s1 (Inland) Integrity
Management Program procedures.
As a result of the inspection, PHMSA has identified the apparent inadequacy found within Inland’s
procedures. The item inspected and the inadequacy is described below:
1. § 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) . . . .
(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage
pipeline integrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section
must:
(1) Develop a written integrity management program that
addresses the risks on each segment of pipeline in the first column of
the following table no later than the date in the second column: . . . .
(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?
—
1 Energy Transfer, LP, has a controlling financial interest in Inland Corporation.



(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to
address all anomalous conditions in the pipeline that the operator
discovers through the integrity assessment or information analysis. In
addressing all conditions, an operator must evaluate all anomalous
conditions and remediate those that could reduce a pipeline's
integrity, as required by this part. An operator must be able to
demonstrate that the remediation of the condition will ensure that the
condition is unlikely to pose a threat to the long-term integrity of the
pipeline. An operator must comply with all other applicable
requirements in this part in remediating a condition. Each operator
must, in repairing its pipeline systems, ensure that the repairs are
made in a safe and timely manner and are made so as to prevent
damage to persons, property, or the environment. The calculation
method(s) used for anomaly evaluation must be applicable for the
range of relevant threats.
(i) . . . .
(ii) Long-term pressure reduction. When a pressure reduction
exceeds 365 days, the operator must notify PHMSA in accordance
with paragraph (m) of this section and explain the reasons for the
delay. An operator must also take further remedial action to ensure
the safety of the pipeline.
Inland’s written integrity management program was inadequate to provide for safe operation of a
pipeline facility in accordance with § 195.452(h)(1)(ii). Specifically, Inland’s Pipeline Integrity
Management Plan (IMP)2
, ETC Hazardous Liquids IMP (Rev. 10, Sept. 20, 2024), Section 7.3:
Discovery of a Condition, failed to describe how it would determine further remedial actions to
ensure the safety of the pipeline when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days in accordance with
§ 195.452(h)(1)(ii).
Section 7.3 re-states the regulatory requirement in § 195.452(h)(1)(ii) to take further remedial
actions to ensure pipeline safety when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days, but does not describe
how further remedial actions are determined to ensure the safety of the pipeline.
Therefore, Inland must revise its integrity management program to describe how further remedial
action is determined to ensure the safety of the pipeline when a pressure reduction exceeds 365
days in accordance with § 195.452(h)(1)(ii).
Response to this Notice
This Notice is provided pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60108(a) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.206. Enclosed as
part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement
Proceedings.
2 Inland Corporation and Energy Transfer, LP share an Integrity Management Plan.



Please refer to this document and note the response options. Be advised that all material you
submit in response to this enforcement action is subject to being made publicly available. If you
believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for confidential treatment under 5
U.S.C. § 552(b), along with the complete original document you must provide a second copy of
the document with the portions you believe qualify for confidential treatment redacted and an
explanation of why you believe the redacted information qualifies for confidential treatment under
5 U.S.C. § 552(b).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, revised
procedures, or a request for a hearing under § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of
receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice
and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this Notice
without further notice to you and to issue an Order Directing Amendment. If your plans or
procedures are found inadequate as alleged in this Notice, you may be ordered to amend your plans
or procedures to correct the inadequacies (49 C.F.R. § 190.206). If you are not contesting this
Notice, we propose that you submit your amended procedures to my office within 30 days of
receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause. Once the
inadequacies identified herein have been addressed in your amended procedures, this enforcement
action will be closed.
It is requested (not mandated) that Inland Corporation maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Notice of Amendment (preparation/revision of
plans, procedures) and submit the total to Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In correspondence concerning this matter, please
refer to CPF 4-2025-003-NOA and, for each document you submit, please provide a copy in
electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Bryan Lethcoe
Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Enforcement Proceedings
cc: Greg McIlwain, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
gregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com
Eric Amundsen, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
eric.amundsen@energytransfer.com
Todd Stamm, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,
todd.stamm@energytransfer.com
Jennifer Street, Senior Vice President of Operations Services, Energy Transfer, LP,



jennifer.street@energytransfer.com
Keegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,
keegan.pieper@energytransfer.com
Mathew Stork, Vice President of Tech Services, Energy Transfer, LP,
mathew.stork@energytransfer.com
Todd Nardozzi, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,
todd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com
Susie Sjulin, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,
susie.sjulin@energytransfer.com

42025003NOA_Order Directing Amendment_11202025_(24-316529)_text.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
November 20, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com
Thomas Long
Chief Executive Officer
Energy Transfer, LP
8111 Westchester Drive
Dallas, Texas 75227
Re: CPF No. 4-2025-003-NOA
Dear Mr. Long:
Enclosed please find the Order Directing Amendment issued in the above-referenced case. It
makes findings of inadequate procedures and requires Inland Corporation to amend certain
procedures. When the amendment of procedures has been completed, as determined by the
Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Order
Directing Amendment 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: Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Todd Nardozzi, Director – DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer,
todd.nardozzi@energytransfer.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 )
Inland Corporation, ) CPF No. 4-2025-003-NOA
a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, )
Respondent. )
)
)
)
)
)
____________________________________)
ORDER DIRECTING AMENDMENT
From August 6 to December 12, 2024, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49
United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected Inland Corporation’s (Inland) Integrity Management
Program procedures. Energy Transfer, LP, (Energy Transfer or Respondent) has a controlling
financial interest in Inland Corporation.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, PHMSA Southwest Region, OPS, issued to Inland by
letter dated May 8, 2025, a Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR §
190.206, the Notice alleged certain inadequacies in Inland’s integrity management program and
proposed that Inland amend its procedures.
Energy Transfer, on behalf of Inland, responded to the Notice on January 15, 2024 (Response).
In its Response, Energy Transfer contested the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and
therefore waived its right to one. On August 4, 2025, the Director provided a Region
Recommendation recommending that PHMSA issue an Order Directing Amendment to Inland as
proposed in the Notice.
FINDING OF INADEQUATE PROCEDURES
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Inland’s written integrity management program was inadequate
to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility in accordance with section 195.452(h)(1)(ii).
1 Inland Corporation, Energy Transfer, https://nsletconnect.energytransfer.com/ipost/IC (last accessed August 18,
2025).



2
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Inland’s integrity management plan (IMP),2 ETC Hazardous
Liquids IMP (Rev. 10, Sept. 20, 2024), Section 7.3, Discovery of a Condition, restated the
regulatory requirement in section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) to take further remedial actions to ensure
pipeline safety when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days, but did not describe how further
remedial actions are determined. The Notice proposed ordering Inland to revise its IMP to
describe, when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days, how further remedial action is
determined to ensure the safety of the pipeline.
Energy Transfer Response
Energy Transfer contested the allegation in the Notice in its Response for three reasons. First,
Energy Transfer argued that the IMP complies with section 195.452(h)(1)(ii), because “[t]he
plain language of § 195.452(h)(1)(ii) does not require an operator to describe in its procedures or
plans ‘how’ further remedial action is determined to ensure the safety of the pipeline when a
pressure reduction exceeds 365 days.” Energy Transfer further asserted that because
“[s]ituations wherein a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days vary greatly as do the conditions for
which the pressure reduction was initially implemented[,] . . . the additional actions an operator
may elect to take when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days can vary greatly as well.” Energy
Transfer quoted from the preamble to the final rule prescribing section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) to
support these positions, noting that PHMSA acknowledged that “[t]he rule provides the operator
flexibility to determine the most appropriate action to take.”
Second, Energy Transfer asserted that PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance “does not indicate that
an operator must describe in in [sic] its procedures or plans ‘how’ further remedial action is
determined to ensure the safety of the pipeline when a pressure reduction exceeds 365 days.”
Energy Transfer also noted that PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance only lists as examples of a
probable violation, or inadequate procedures related to section 195.452(h)(1)(ii): “1) ‘failure to
take additional remedial actions when a pressure reduction exceeded 365 days’ and 2) ‘a failure
to notify PHMSA when a pressure reduction exceeded 365 days.’” Energy Transfer argued that
the violation alleged in the Notice is not like the examples noted in the Enforcement Guidance
and should be withdrawn.
Third, Energy Transfer argued that it found no prior PHMSA enforcement actions related to
section 195.452(h)(1)(ii). The lack of prior enforcement, Energy Transfer stated, means that
“industry has no reasonable and fair methodology to determine PHMSA’s position on the matter
and to measure such position against its own procedures and plans to ensure it is in compliance
with the plain language of the regulation and the PHMSA expectation as to how §
195.452(h)(1)(ii) should be implemented by the industry.”
Director’s Region Recommendation
The Director recommended that PHMSA issue an Order Directing Amendment as proposed in
the Notice in the Region Recommendation. As to Energy Transfer’s first argument, the Director
explained that a procedure which simply parrots the language of a regulation can be deemed
“inadequate to assure safe operation of a pipeline facility” under section 190.206. The Director
2 Inland Corporation and Energy Transfer share an integrity management plan.



3
cited prior PHMSA enforcement cases to support that proposition and stated that the evidence of
record substantiates the inadequacy of Energy Transfer’s IMP. Specifically, the Director noted
that Inland identified increased right-of-way (ROW) patrols as the further remedial action taken
after exceeding the 365-day pressure reduction limit, but that the record showed that Inland did
not actually perform any increased ROW patrols. Rather, Inland continued to conduct ROW
patrols at the same frequency as before reaching the 365-day limit. According to the Director,
Inland’s “‘further remedial action’ . . . was . . . a holding pattern from before the pressure
restriction exceeded 365 days as opposed to additional or greater action,” which “affirm[ed]
Southwest Region’s position that Inland’s procedures lack sufficient detail to ensure that further
remedial action is implemented and verified.”
The Director also stated that the quoted language from the preamble to the final rule did not
undermine the allegations in the Notice. The Director acknowledged that operators have
significant discretion in determining the “further remedial actions” that should be taken under
section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) but noted that Inland had not provided “any description of how such a
determination could be made” in its IMP. The Director stated the IMP needed to include that
information, particularly for the further remedial actions that may be required after exceeding the
365-day limit as “anomaly conditions can change in a year and may require a different response
than whatever the operator has done so far.”
Regarding Energy Transfer’s second argument, the Director observed that PHMSA’s
Enforcement Guidance for section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) did not absolve Inland of its obligation to
have adequate procedures. The Director explained that PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance does
not limit his discretion to initiate an enforcement action for an alleged violation and that, in any
event, the Enforcement Guidance for section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) lists “omissions or deficiencies in
the information used in making decisions in regards to anomalous conditions that require
remediation” as an example of a procedural inadequacy. Inland’s failure to include anything in
its IMP about the information that should be used in making determinations concerning the
further remedial actions to be taken after exceeding the 365-day limit qualifies as such an
omission or deficiency.
Finally, as to Energy Transfer’s third argument, the Director stated that PHMSA’s enforcement
history supports the allegations in the Notice. While recognizing that PHMSA had not previously
issued an order directing amendment to an operator for having inadequate procedures under
section 195.452(h)(1)(ii), the Director pointed to other comparable cases involving inadequate
procedures under sections 195.452(g)(1)-(4) and 195.404(c)(3). The Director argued that these
cases demonstrate that Inland did not have adequate procedures in its IMP for implementing the
requirements in section 195.452(h)(1)(ii).
Analysis
Having considered the record and the factors in section 190.206(b)(1)-(4),
3 I find that Inland did
3 Section 190.206(b)(1)-(4) prescribes the factors that the Associate Administrator may consider “[i]n determining
the adequacy of an operator’s plans or procedures.” Id. Those factors include: 1) relevant pipeline safety data; 2)
whether the plans or procedures are appropriate for the particular type of pipeline transportation or facility; 3) the
reasonableness of the plans or procedures; and 4) the extent to which the plans or procedures contribute to public



4
not have adequate procedures in its IMP to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility. It is
undisputed that section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) requires an operator to “take further remedial action to
ensure the safety of the pipeline” if a pressure reduction taken to address an integrity issue
exceeds 365 days. It is also undisputed that Inland had an obligation to include a procedure in its
IMP for implementing section 195.452(h)(1)(ii), and that Inland’s procedure did nothing more
than parrot or restate the language in section 195.452(h)(1)(ii). The sole issue to be decided in
this case is whether such a procedure is adequate to ensure the safe operation of Inland’s
pipeline facilities under section 190.206.
The Director stands behind the allegations in the Notice, noting that PHMSA has said in prior
enforcement actions initiated under section 190.206 that a “document that simply paraphrases
PHMSA regulations and guidance and lacks the specificity necessary to show consideration of
the unique features of an operator’s system does not constitute an adequate procedure.”4 Energy
Transfer takes the opposite position, arguing that an IMP is adequate under section 190.206 so
long as Inland—and presumably every other pipeline operator—has a procedure that simply
parrots or restates the text of section 195.452(h)(1)(ii). The Director’s argument is more
persuasive.
First, the obligation to develop and implement a written IMP would serve no useful purpose if an
operator need only reiterate the text of section 195.452. Indeed, the written IMP would be
entirely redundant if that is all that section 195.452 required as an operator could achieve
compliance simply by printing out a written version of the regulation. The text, structure,
purpose, and history of section 195.452 make clear that an operator must do more to meet its
obligation to develop and implement a written IMP.
Second, the evidence of record demonstrates why a written IMP that simply parrots or restates
the language of section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) is inadequate. Inland had such language in its IMP and
failed to take any further remedial action to ensure the safety of its pipeline after exceeding the
365-day limit. While claiming to have implemented increased ROW patrols, the evidence
indicates that Inland continued to perform ROW patrols at the same frequency.5 In other words,
as the Director explained in his Region Recommendation, Inland’s “‘further remedial action’ . . .
was . . . a holding pattern from before the pressure restriction exceeded 365 days as opposed to
additional or greater action.” Having failed to provide its personnel with any additional
instruction on the factors that should be considered or the process that should be followed in
making that decision, Inland’s failure to implement any further remedial action after exceeding
the 365-day limit is unsurprising.
Third, Energy Transfer’s argument that section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) provides operators with
safety. Id.; see also 49 U.S.C. § 60109(c)(9)(A)(iii) (“If the Secretary determines that a risk analysis or integrity
management program does not comply with the requirements of this subsection or regulations issued as described in
paragraph (2), has not been adequately implemented, or is inadequate for the safe operation of a pipeline facility, the
Secretary may conduct proceedings under this chapter”)
4 In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, 2013 WL 5305819, at *8 (finding an operators procedures
implementing § 195.452(i)(1) inadequate to assure the safe operation of a pipeline facility).
5 Case File Exhibit A-3_Operator Emails_RE_ Regarding SRCR23-284972_12122024.



5
flexibility in determining the further remedial actions that should be taken is unavailing. The
regulation does in fact provide operators with that flexibility—a point that the Director concedes
in his Region Recommendation—but that does not mean that an operator can satisfy the “further
remedial action” requirement in section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) by doing anything it wants—or, in this
case, by doing nothing at all.6 PHMSA has made clear that “whatever action is taken by an
operator” must be “adequate to resolve the integrity concern on the pipeline for the long term.”7
For that reason, the written IMP must provide personnel with instruction on the factors that
should be considered or the process that should be followed in making a decision about the
further remedial action that is required to satisfy section 195.452(h)(1)(ii). Inland clearly failed
to provide that instruction in its IMP.
Fourth, Energy Transfer’s arguments regarding PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance fares no
better. PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance is not intended to diminish or otherwise affect the
authority of PHMSA to carry out its statutory, regulatory, or other official functions or to
commit PHMSA to taking any action that is subject to its discretion.8 Furthermore, as the
Director noted in his Region Recommendation, PHMSA’s Enforcement Guidance for section
195.452(h)(1) includes “omissions or deficiencies in the information used in making decisions in
regards to anomalous conditions that require remediation” as an example of a probable violation
or procedural inadequacy.9 Inland’s IMP provides no instruction on the decision-making process
that personnel should use in satisfying the “further remedial action” requirement in section
195.452(h)(1), and the Enforcement Guidance itself provided Inland with fair notice that such an
omission or deficiency could render its IMP inadequate.
Finally, Energy Transfer’s argument regarding the lack of prior enforcement actions under
section 195.452(h)(1)(ii) is unpersuasive. PHMSA is required to review the adequacy of an
operator’s integrity management procedures,10 and this case is nothing more than a
straightforward application of the criteria that apply in conducting those reviews to Inland’s
IMP.
11 Moreover, as the Director observed in his Region Recommendation, PHMSA has been
6 Energy Transfer’s suggestion that the “further remedial action” requirement in § 195.452(h)(1)(ii) can be satisfied
by “simply continuing to maintain the pressure reduction” is incorrect. The language of the regulation makes clear
that “[a]n operator must also take further remedial action to ensure the safety of the pipeline” after notifying
PHMSA that the pressure reduction has exceeded the 365-day limit. § 195.452(h)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). An
operator who simply maintains an existing pressure reduction is not “also” taking any “further” remedial action
within the ordinary meaning of either term. See Also, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY,
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/also (defining also as “in addition”) (last accessed August 19,
2025), and the ordinary meaning of “further” is to a greater distance or degree, or at a more advanced level.” See
Further, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/further (defining further
as “to a greater distance or degree, or at a more advanced level”) (last accessed August 19, 2025).
7 Pipeline Safety: Pipeline integrity Management in High Consequence Areas (Repair Criteria),” 67 FR 1650, 1652
(Jan. 14, 2002).
8 “Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management Enforcement Guidance Sections 195.450 and 452”
(December 7, 2015), at 1, available at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement/hazardous-liquid-integrity-
management-enforcement-guidance (last accessed August 19, 2025).
9 Id. at 92.
10 49 U.S.C. § 60109(c)(9)(A)(iii).
11 49 CFR § 190.206(b)(1)-(4).



6
clear in conveying the requirements for operator procedures, including for the adequacy of
procedures under section 195.452. PHMSA has also specifically stated in prior enforcement
actions that failing to have specific procedures for performing an analysis or evaluation and
merely paraphrasing PHMSA regulations or guidance does not constitute an adequate IMP.12
The fact that those enforcement actions arose under different subsections of section 195.452 or
involved different regulations in Part 195 does not mean that the same principles cannot be
applied to section 195.452(h)(1)(ii).
Accordingly, after reviewing the evidence, I find that Inland’s written integrity management
program is inadequate to ensure safe operation of a pipeline facility in accordance with section
195.452(h)(1)(ii). Inland is hereby ordered to revise its procedures as specified above. Finalized
procedures must be provided to the Southwest Region for review and approval.
Under 49 CFR § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC, 20590. The written petition must
contain a statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The
terms of the Order remain in effect until the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a
stay. The terms and conditions of this Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
CFR § 190.5.
Respondent must amend its procedures, as required above, and submit them to the Director,
PHMSA Southwest Region, OPS, within 30 days following receipt of this Order. The Director
may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request
timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension. Failure to
comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties exceeding
$200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for each
violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for
appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
___________________________________ ______________________
Linda Daugherty Date Issued
Acting Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
12 In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, 2013 WL 5305819, at *3, 4, 8; see also In the Matter of
Explorer Pipeline Company, 2015 WL 4882526, at *1-3.
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 30924