{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520040003","title":"ENSTAR NATURAL GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2004-03-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.805(b), 192.807(b).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520040003.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520040003.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520040003","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520040003","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENSTAR NATURAL GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.805(b),  192.807(b). The case was opened on 2004-03-11 and is reported as closed as of 2009-10-22. Proposed civil penalty: $24,000. Assessed civil penalty: $21,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520040003_FinalOrder_04282009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520040003/520040003_FinalOrder_04282009.pdf\n\n520040003_FinalOrder_04282009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520040003/520040003_FinalOrder_04282009_text.pdf\n\n520040003_FinalOrder_04282009_text.pdf\n\nAPR 28 09\nMr. David W. Bredin\nDirector of Operations\nENSTAR Natural Gas Company\nP. O. Box 190288\n401 East International Airport Road\nAnchorage, AK 99519-0288\nRe: CPF No. 5-2004-0003\nDear Mr. Bredin:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation,\nwithdraws three other allegations of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $21,500, and\nspecifies actions that need to be taken by ENSTAR to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty\nhas been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director,\nWestern Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order\nconstitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nBY CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 1160 0001 0047 7056]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n______________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nENSTAR Natural Gas Company, ) CPF No. 5-2004-0003\n)\nRespondent. )\n______________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn June 18 - 19, 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Research and\nsite pipeline safety inspection of the Operator Qualification (OQ) records and procedures of\nENSTAR Natural Gas Company (ENSTAR or Respondent) in Anchorage, Alaska. ENSTAR\noperates natural gas transmission and distribution systems throughout Southern Alaska. As a\nresult of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by\nletter dated March 11, 2004, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that Respondent had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.805(b) and 192.807(b) and\nproposed assessing a civil penalty of $24,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also\nproposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nSpecial Programs Administration (RSPA)1 , Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-\nBy letter dated April 7, 2004, ENSTAR requested and subsequently received a 14-day extension\nfor responding to the Notice. Respondent replied to the Notice by letter dated April 20, 2004\n(Response). The company supplemented its Response by letter dated May 14, 2004, indicating\nthe allegations it was contesting and requesting a hearing. The hearing was held on May 4, 2005,\nin Anchorage, Alaska, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, serving as\npresiding official. By letter dated May 24, 2005, Respondent provided a summary of the\ninformation and supporting documents it had presented at the hearing (Closing). The following\norder is divided into four sections: Findings of Violation (contested and uncontested);\nWithdrawal of Allegations; Assessment of Penalty; and Compliance Order.\n1 On November 30, 2004, the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act, Pub. L. No.\n108-426, 118 Stat. 2423, created the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and\ntransferred the authority of RSPA exercised under chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, to the Administrator\nof PHMSA. See also 70 Fed. Reg. 8299, 8301-8302 (2005) (delegating authority to the Administrator of PHMSA).\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nContested Items\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:\nItem 1A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), which states:\n§ 192.805 Qualification program.\nEach operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.\nThe program shall include provisions to:\n(a) Identify covered tasks;\n(b) Ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nare qualified;…\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure through evaluation\nthat individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nduring a written examination of employees regarding a certain leak investigation procedure,\nRespondent provided the employees with copies of the exam answer key that showed the correct\nanswers underlined and in bold typeface, rather than with blank answer sheets.\nIn its Response, ENSTAR admitted that it had inadvertently distributed the exam key during its\nevaluation of a group of employees on leak investigation procedures but asserted that it had\nsubsequently re-tested them after the inspection, using a new exam, and that each employee had\npassed. In its Response and Closing, Respondent acknowledged that its “record keeping” was\ninadequate but argued that its employees were adequately trained and qualified.2\nRegardless of how well trained or qualified its employees actually are, the fact remains that\nENSTAR failed to properly administer an effective OQ test to its employees. Providing a test\nthat reveals all the answers obviously undermines the purpose of such evaluation and fails to\ngive Respondent an accurate indication of whether its personnel are qualified. After considering\nall the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing to ensure\nthrough proper evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified.\nItem 2A: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), as quoted above,\nby failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent’s OQ examinations did not address abnormal\noperations conditions (AOCs) in any form.\nUnder the OQ regulations, operators have an obligation to ensure that individuals performing\ncovered tasks are properly qualified. The terms “qualified” and “abnormal operating condition”\nare defined in § 192.803, which states:\n§ 192.803 Definitions.\nQualified means that an individual has been evaluated and can:\n(a) Perform assigned covered tasks; and\n2 Closing at 1.\n\n\n\n3\n(b) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions. . . .\nand\nAbnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the\noperator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation\nfrom normal operations that may:\n(a) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or\n(b) Result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the environment.\nIn its Response, at the hearing and in its Closing, Respondent contended that it had adequately\ntrained employees on covered tasks, including AOCs. Respondent admitted, however, that it did\nnot actually use the terms “abnormal operating conditions” or “AOCs” in its OQ evaluation. In\nits Closing, Respondent provided sample OQ test questions regarding unusual or abnormal\noperating conditions associated with various covered tasks; the company argued that these\nquestions adequately addressed AOCs. The evidence shows, however, that the test questions\nwere cursory and general in nature and did not adequately evaluate an individual’s actual\nknowledge and ability to recognize and react to specific AOCs; they failed to assess an\nindividual’s skills in terms of the detailed stepwise actions that one must take in response to\nAOCs. In the absence of such detail, I find that Respondent’s evaluation process was inadequate\nto determine whether individuals were properly qualified.\nAccordingly, upon considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated § 192.805(b)\nby failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified\nto recognize and react to AOCs.\nItem 2B: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), as quoted above,\nby failing to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks were\n“qualified,” as defined in § 192.803. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the company’s\nOperations Technicians, Surveyors, Gas Control Dispatchers and Pipeline Supervisors were not\nproperly qualified to recognize and react to AOCs for the covered tasks that Respondent’s\nrecords indicated they were qualified to perform. The Notice alleged that:\ni) During a field verification inspection, a welder was asked about AOCs that might occur\nduring hot tapping and stoppling tasks. The welder was unfamiliar with the term “abnormal\noperating condition;” and\nii) During a field verification inspection in the Gas Control Center, OPS inspectors\ndiscussed AOCs and the necessary responses and reactions to them with ENSTAR personnel.\nThe inspectors observed that the Gas Control Center personnel, including the supervisor, had\nonly a weak knowledge of AOCs and the appropriate responses to them. For example, the\ninspectors observed that Control Center personnel did not view temporary pressure\nexcursions above the maximum allowed operating pressure (MAOP) as AOCs. On the\ncontrary, the Control Center personnel considered them to be normal events that occurred\nperiodically, if not frequently, with steps taken to reduce the pressure only as time and\ncircumstances permitted.\nThe employees’ lack of familiarity with AOCs and how to recognize and react to them indicated\n\n\n\n4\nthat Respondent had not taken proper steps to ensure through evaluation that the employees were\nqualified to perform their covered tasks. In its Response, at the hearing, and in its Closing,\nRespondent contended that while certain individuals questioned by OPS during the inspection\nmay have been unfamiliar with the term “AOC,” they nonetheless knew how to identify and\nreact to AOCs.\nThe record, however, shows that certain ENSTAR employees were clearly not able to recognize\nand react to AOCs. During the inspection, Respondent’s Control Center personnel were\nquestioned by the OPS inspection team and could not properly recognize excursions above\nattention. The ability to properly recognize and prevent potential pipeline overpressure\nsituations is necessary to protect the safety of Respondent’s pipeline system. Control Center\npersonnel must be able to readily identify excursions from MAOP as AOCs in order to address\nMAOP as AOCs.3 An excursion above MAOP is a significant AOC that demands immediate\nquickly and properly these potentially dangerous conditions.\nRespondent also indicated that after the inspection, it provided additional training to its\nemployees on AOCs, both generally and for specific covered tasks. While PHMSA appreciates\nRespondent’s efforts to provide such training after the inspection, this does not reduce the\ncompany’s obligation to comply with the OQ regulations at all times. Accordingly, upon\nconsidering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b) by failing\nto ensure through evaluation that its personnel were qualified to recognize and react to AOCs.\nUncontested Items\nIn its Response and at the hearing, Respondent did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it\nviolated 49 C.F.R. Part 192 as follows:\nItems 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D: The Notice alleged that Respondent committed four violations of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.807(b), which states:\n§ 192.807 Recordkeeping.\nEach operator shall maintain records that demonstrate compliance\nwith [Subpart N].\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Records supporting an individual’s current qualification shall be\nmaintained while the individual is performing the covered task. Record of\nprior qualification and records of individuals no longer performing covered\ntasks shall be retained for a period of five years.\nItems 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D in the Notice alleged that Respondent did not maintain adequate\nrecords demonstrating each individual’s current qualifications while the individual performed\ncovered tasks. Specifically, Items 3(A-D) alleged the following:\nItem 3A: Numerous qualification tests were missing the signatures of either the\nindividuals being evaluated or their supervisors, or were missing other pertinent\ninformation that should have been recorded on the test form before the\ninstructor/evaluator released the individual from the examination.\n3 Notice at 3.\n\n\n\n5\nItem 3B: Several individuals had apparently completed skills evaluations for\nvarious fusion (welding) covered tasks but their supervisors had failed to sign the\nevaluations to confirm they were satisfactorily completed.\nItem 3C: Respondent provided OPS with a matrix showing the qualification of\neach individual for particular covered tasks. Respondent indicated that the matrix was\nused to track and plan for qualified personnel, but the inspector observed that it was\nincomplete and had numerous errors.\nItem 3D: Qualification tests were taken by individuals other than the ones being\nqualified.\nRespondent did not contest these allegations and provided information about the steps it had\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.807(b), as set forth in Items 3(A-D), by failing to keep\nalready taken, and that it proposed to take, to correct the violations. 4 Accordingly, I find that\nadequate records supporting individuals’ current qualifications while performing covered tasks.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS\nItems 1B, 1C, and 1D: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), as\nquoted above, by failing to qualify certain welders on the performance of three types of covered\ntasks. The Director has reviewed certain information that ENSTAR provided in its Response, at\nthe hearing, and in its Closing, and has determined that Respondent was in compliance with the\nregulation at the time of the inspection. Regarding Item 1B, Respondent demonstrated that the\nparticular welder at issue was qualified by examination on February 20, 2003, and was therefore\nqualified at the time of the inspection. Regarding Item 1C, Respondent explained in its\nResponse that cadwelding was not identified as a covered task at the time of the inspection.\nRespondent indicated that it added cadwelding as a covered task immediately after the\ninspection. Regarding Item 1D, Respondent demonstrated that although the welder performing\nthe covered task was not qualified, he was being directed and observed by someone who was\nqualified, as permitted under § 195.805(c). As a result, I hereby withdraw the allegations of\nviolation set forth in Items 1B, 1C, and 1D.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.\n4 While the Notice alleged that there were multiple “instances found where a qualification test was completed by an\nindividual other than the one being qualified,” ENSTAR demonstrated at the hearing that there was only one such\ninstance.\n\n\n\n6\n49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; the Respondent’s ability to pay the penalty and any effect that\nthe penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent\nin attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the\neconomic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent\ndamages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil\npenalty of $24,000 for the alleged violations.\nNotice Item 1A proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), for\nRespondent’s failure to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nwere qualified. Respondent requested reduction of the proposed penalty on the basis that it had\nre-tested the individuals who had been improperly evaluated. While OPS appreciates\nRespondent’s efforts to remedy the OQ testing violation, ENSTAR is obliged to comply with the\nOQ regulations at all times. Subsequent remedial action neither reduces the gravity of a\nviolation nor constitutes good faith in attempting to comply with the regulations.\nThe OQ evaluation requirements are of particular importance in the pipeline safety regulatory\nscheme because they indicate whether personnel are qualified to safely perform covered tasks.\nIn this case, when Respondent evaluated its employees by giving them a test which showed the\nanswers already marked, the diagnostic and safety purposes of the regulation were defeated.\nRespondent has provided no information that would warrant a reduction in the proposed civil\npenalty for this Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000, for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b).\nNotice Items 1B, 1C, and 1D proposed civil penalties of $500, $1,000, and $1,000, respectively,\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), for Respondent’s failure to ensure through evaluation\nthat individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nENSTAR failed to qualify certain welders on the performance of three types of covered tasks. In\nits Response, at the hearing, and in its Closing, ENSTAR provided credible evidence, as\ndiscussed above, that it was in compliance with the regulation at the time of the inspection.\nAccordingly, I withdraw the proposed penalties for Items 1B, 1C, and 1D.\nNotice Item 2A proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), for\nRespondent’s failure to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks\nwere qualified to address AOCs. This violation reduced the safety of ENSTAR’s pipeline\nfacilities because it increased the risk that AOCs would not be promptly identified and safely\naddressed by qualified personnel.\nIn its Closing, Respondent argued that it had covered AOCs in its testing program and that it had\nprovided sample examination questions to OPS that proved the adequacy of its evaluation\nprocess. As discussed above, I found that the exam questions were general in nature and did not\nadequately test an individual’s actual knowledge and ability to recognize and react to specific\nAOCs. As a result, the examination questions themselves do not warrant a reduction in the\ngravity of the violation or a corresponding reduction in the penalty.\n\n\n\n7\nENSTAR also argued that it took corrective action after the inspection to ensure that its\npersonnel were properly trained to recognize and respond to AOCs. Subsequent remedial\nmeasures, while helpful, neither reduce the gravity of a violation nor constitute good faith in\nattempting to comply with the regulations. Respondent has provided no information that would\nwarrant a reduction in the proposed civil penalty for this Item. Accordingly, having reviewed the\nrecord and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000, for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b).\nNotice Item 2B proposed a civil penalty of $1,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b), for\nRespondent’s failure to ensure that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified. OPS\ninspectors reviewed OQ records and then questioned certain individuals in the field to determine\ntheir familiarity with AOCs. In its Closing, Respondent requested a reduction in the proposed\npenalty on the basis that the proposed civil penalty for Item 2B was a “continuation” of the\npenalty proposed in Item 2A. I disagree. Item 2A involved Respondent’s failure to include\nsufficient coverage of AOCs in its written evaluation program, whereas Item 2B involved\nRespondent’s failure to ensure through evaluation that individual ENSTAR personnel were\nactually qualified to recognize and react to AOCs.\nRespondent also sought reduction in the civil penalty on the basis of its “initial and post audit\ntraining.” As discussed above, Respondent’s OQ evaluation program that was in place at the\ntime of the inspection was inadequate because it did not include an effective process for\nevaluating individual employees. Subsequent remedial action neither reduces the gravity of the\nviolation nor constitutes good faith in attempting to comply with the regulations. Respondent\nhas provided no information that would warrant a reduction in the proposed civil penalty for this\nItem. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $1,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(b).\nNotice Item 3 proposed a civil penalty of $10,500 for four (4) violations of 49 C.F.R. §\n192.807(b), for Respondent’s failure to maintain adequate records supporting individuals’\ncurrent qualifications while performing covered tasks. Respondent’s failure to properly maintain\nOQ records makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine accurately the qualifications of\nindividuals performing covered tasks. This creates the risk that unqualified individuals might\nperform covered tasks on Respondent’s pipeline system.\nIn its Response and Closing, Respondent requested reduction of the proposed civil penalty for\nthis Item on the basis of ENSTAR’s efforts to achieve compliance. Although PHMSA\nappreciates ENSTAR’s efforts to review each individual’s qualifications and correct its\nrecordkeeping deficiencies since the date of the inspection, these are steps that any reasonable\nand prudent operator would take in response to a Notice of Probable Violation. The fact remains\nthat at the time of the inspection, Respondent was out of compliance with the OQ regulations.\nRespondent has provided no information or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the civil\npenalty. Therefore, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,500 for multiple violations of 49\nC.F.R. § 192.807(b).\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for all of the\nItems listed above, I assess Respondent a reduced total civil penalty of $21,500.\n\n\n\n8\nRespondent has presented no information that indicates payment of this penalty would adversely\naffect its ability to continue in business.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $21,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United\nStates District Court.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1A, 2A, 3A and 3B in the Notice\nfor violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.805(b) and 192.807(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each\nperson who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is\nrequired to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant\nto the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take\nthe following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its\noperations.\nRespondent must -\n1. With regard to Item 1A, review the examinations given to all personnel for SOP\n2010R, Leak Investigation Procedure, and determine which individuals received the\nexam key for the test. Each person who received the key exam shall be re-qualified\nto perform the task. The necessary documentation of qualifications shall be\ncompleted and submitted within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Final Order.\n2. With regard to Item 2A, review each covered task designated by ENSTAR and\ndetermine the possible AOCs that could be encountered while performing such task.\nAlso, determine any other AOCs that could be encountered on ENSTAR’s pipeline\nfacilities during general operations.\nSubmit to the Director the list of AOCs established and their relationship to specific\ncovered tasks and general operations. Also, prepare and submit your plans and\nproposed scheduling for ensuring that all personnel performing covered tasks,\ndocumented in your database, are presented with the listed AOCs and that they can\nrecognize and react to those AOCs. The list of AOCs and plan shall be submitted\nwithin sixty (60) days of your receipt of the Final Order. The presentation of AOCs\nto personnel performing covered tasks shall be completed and documentation\nsubmitted within one hundred twenty (120) days of your receipt of the Final Order.\n\n\n\n9\n3. With regard to Items 3A and 3B, review the qualification records of existing\nemployees to determine whether any individuals who perform covered tasks are not\nqualified. Review all test records to ensure that necessary information, including\nindividual and evaluator signatures, is complete. Develop a list of all individuals\nwhose qualification records are not currently in ENSTAR’s possession. Develop\nplans and proposed scheduling for evaluation and qualification of those individuals in\nthe aforementioned list. Submit the list of individuals within sixty (60) days of your\nreceipt of the Final Order. Complete and submit documentation of the evaluation and\nqualification of the individuals on the list within one hundred twenty (120) days of\nyour receipt of the Final Order.\nUpon completion of the actions required in the paragraphs above and preparation of appropriate\nrecords demonstrating compliance with this Compliance Order, submit a statement describing\nthe actions you took to comply, along with supporting records and any other necessary materials\nto the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood,\nCO 80228.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $100,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this\nFinal Order and contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The terms of the order, including any\nrequired corrective action and amendment of procedures, shall remain in full force and effect\nunless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this\nFinal Order shall be effective upon receipt.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":28388}