EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFU 5 DepartrTtenr of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S W Washington, D C 20590 JAN - 9 2607 Mr Rt. hard A Rabino'v President ExxonMobil Pipeline Company 800 Bell St, Houston, TX 77J02 Re: CPF No. 5-2005-5008 Dear Mr. Rabinow; Enclosed is the Final Order issued hy the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in the above-referenced case. It withdraws two of the Notice Items, makes findings of violation, and assesses a civil penalty of $5, 000. The Final Order also specifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regiilations and revision of certain procedures/plans The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order When the civil penalty is paid and the terms of the Compliance Order and Amendment of Procedures are completed, as determmed by the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, this enforcement action will be closed Your receipt of the I'inal Order constitutes service under 49 C. F. R g 190 5. Sincerely, James Reynolds Pipeline Compliance Registry PHMSA-Office of Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Ms. Candice Vrembling Di khuizen, Esq. ExxonMobil Pipeline Company Law Department 800 Bell Street Houston, Texas 77702#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 2Mr. Jimmy James, Operations Manager — Northern Region ExxonMobil Pipeline Company 3225 Gallows Road Fairfax, Virginia 22037 Mr. Chris Hoidal, P E. , Director Western Region, PHMSA Mr. Jerry Davis, P. E. , Western Region, PHMSA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 3DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, DC 20590 In the Matter of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Respondent CPF No. 5-2005-5008 FINAL ORDER On or about June 28, 2004 to July I, 2004, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ( 60117, a representative of the Pipelme and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA's)' Office of Pipelme Safety conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's facilities, manuals, and records at the Silvertip Station, Bridger Booster Station, Cenex Refinery delivery point in Laurel, Montana and the ConocoPhillips Refinery and ExxonMobil Refinery delivery points in Billings, Montana. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, PHMSA, issued to Respondent, by letter dated February 18, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, Proposed Compliance Order, and Notice of Amendment (Notice) In accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent committed violations of 49 C. F. R. Part 195, proposed assessing a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the alleged violation, and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed, in accordance with 49 C. F. R. ( 190 237, that Respondent amend its procedures/plans. The Notice also warned Respondent to take appropriate corrective action Respondent responded to the Notice in a letter dated March 24, 2005 (Response). Respondent did not dispute some of the Notice Items but did contest many of them, requested withdrawal of certain Notice Items, offered information in explanation of the allegations, requested elimination of the proposed penalty, and requested a heanng. The hearing was held on December 13, 2005, in Denver, Colorado. After this hearing, Respondent was granted permission and provided a post-hearing submission, dated February 7, 2006. ' Effective February 20, 2005, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) succeeded Research and Special Programs Administration as the agency responsible for regulating safety in pipeline transportation and hazardous matenals transportation See, section 108 of the Norman Y Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426, 118 Stat 2423-2429 (November 30, 2004)) See also, 70 Fed, Reg 8299 (February 18, 2005) redelegatmg the pipehne safety authorities and functions to the PHMSA Administrator#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 4FINDINGS OF VIOLATION (Contested) Item 5a of the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F R. g 195. 402(a) in that Respondent failed to review several of the procedure manuals referenced in Respondent's DOT Liquids Manual once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months, In its first Response, Respondent contested this Notice Item by stating that its DOT Liquids Manual is utilized as the primary manual for documenting DOT required written procedures It stated that this manual is reviewed at least once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months. Respondent further stated that these manuals are also reviewed formally on a periodic basis. Respondent contends that the dates of the latest reviews for these manuals were not properly updated on its Reference Library but that these manuals had been updated on an annual basis for content. Respondent provided no documentation to support this claim At the hearing, Respondent provided affidavits attesting that both the Pipeline Welding Manual and Pipeline Repair and Modifications Manual were reviewed in 2004 and the Hydrostatic Test Manual was reviewed in June of 2004. It provided no documentation showing any of the previous year's reviews. During the PHMSA inspection, on or about June 28, 2004 to July ], 2004, PHMSA inspectors noted that the Hydrostatic Test Manual had not been reviewed since 1993 49 CFR Part 195 Subpart E Pressure Testing has had substantive changes made since 1993 Additionally, PHMSA inspectors noted that the phone numbers in the "working" Facility Response Manual had not been updated since May 18, 2000. This was evidenced by a "sticky note" attached to the manual that said, "Need to Check numbers " When asked what the note meant, Respondent's personnel replied that it had not confirmed the telephone numbers since May 18, 2000. Because Respondent's DOT Liquids Manual refers to other manuals for procedures required under Part 195, those referenced procedures are considered to be a part of the manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. Therefore, as part of its manual review, all referenced procedures required under Part 195 must also be reviewed to ensure effectiveness, once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C, F. R. g 195 402(a) in the Notice Item 12a of the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 573(e). Respondent's cathodic protection (CP) momtoring procedures call for trending of current pipe to soil (P/S) readings with the last three years readings to determine if CP is adequate. Corrosion control records lack documentation of actions taken to correct deficiencies found when trending current monitoring levels. Respondent contested this Proposed Compliance Order item on the grounds that all#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 5measurements were above -S50 mV during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 pipe to soil monitoring. During this inspection of CP monitoring records, only two years of data were available to compare to the October 13, 2003 data. This does not follow Respondent's procedures, which requires the current CP data to be compared to the previous three years of data. If the report had included the CP monitoring data for 2000, it is possible that the areas of low reading could have been reconciled. As the report now shows, there are still some areas of low readings for 2003 Stationing of those apparent low readings in 2003 are MP 0 to MP 0. 3, MP 1, 05 to MP 1. 4, MP 5. 05 to MP 7. 0, MP 9. 2 to MP 10. 05, MP 44. 75 to MP 49. 9, MP 60 8 to MP 62. 4. Without the 2000 year CP monitoring data, it is not possible to determine if these "low" areas meet the criteria shown in Respondent's procedures. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C F. R. $ 195 573(e) in the Notice. Item 12b in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 573(e) Respondent performed a close interval survey in 1999 That survey had several areas that did not meet a -850 mV with impressed current interrupted criteria. Though Respondent resolved several of these low areas during a resurvey in 2000, its records did not have corrective actions taken to mitigate those low areas that continued to have low CP monitoring levels during the 2000 resurvey. In particular were the locations referred to as CIS Stations 564+00 to 565+S9 and 2509+73 to 2518+90. Respondent provided information to PHMSA showing that measures have been taken to remediate the low levels of CP found during a 2000 close interval survey between stations 564+00 and 565+S9. Respondent also made a stateinent that a close interval survey completed on May 19, 2005 shows that the area between stations 2509+73 to 2523+79 have adequate levels of CP. Records provided for stations 564+00 to 565+S9 show that adequate measures have been taken. No records or data were provided showing that mitigative measures have been taken between stations 2509+73 to 2523+79. Respondent only offered a statement that a close interval survey between these stations shows that adequate levels of CP have been provided. Though this may be true, it cannot be verified by PHMSA until Respondent submits the data &om the 2005 close interval survey. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C, F. R. $ 195. 573(e) in the Notice. CPF No. 5-2003-5006 Notice Item 2 required that Respondent amend its procedures to clarify how voltage drops are taken mto account when performing "on" CP inonitoring surveys. Respondent amended its procedures to more accurately describe what it did to take the voltage drops into account durmg annual CP monitoring surveys. Its amended procedure, on page 3 of 12 of Respondent's Facilities Inspection and Maintenance Manageinent system Cathodic Protection Program, dated October 5, 2003, stated: "The annual pipe-to-soils shall be plotted and compared to the last three years When a significant drop in potential is noted, further investigation should be scheduled to identify the cause "#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 6These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE ITEMS Item 2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $ 195 214(a) in that Respondent's girth weld records of the 2000 line lowering project did not indicate which welder performed each weld. Respondent contested this Warning Letter Item and provided documentation, including an affidavit from a welding inspector, which mdicates who the welders were for the 2000 line-lowering prospect and that they were qualified. The affidavit provided by Respondent states that Kenneth M, Thompson was partly responsible for welding mspection during this project. As such, he named Mr. Mark Thiel and Mr. Todd Dehner as the welders Qualifications provided for these two welders show that they both have multiple qualifications under API 1104, which qualifies these welders to do all weldmg provided the process and filler material is the same as their qualification. Assuming that the weldmg done during this project was "production" welding and not "in-service" welding, it is reasonable that the welding procedure used incorporated a Type I or 2 filler material using a shielded metal arc welding process. Both welders were qualified using these vanables. Documentation provided by Respondent adequately addresses this Notice Item. Based on this information demonstrating coinpliance with the regulation, I am withdrawing this Warning Letter Item. Item 7 in the Notice alleged that Respondent had violated 49 C. F. R. $ $ 195 402(c)(3) and 195. 420(b) by failing to include in the DOT valve inspection procedures inspection of the components of the valve or procedures requiring any documentation of such inspections. Respondent contested this Notice of Ainendinent Itein It provided its procedure for valve inaintenance. In that procedure, there is a description for the inspection of components that should be checked: "During the operation of each valve, its operating condition shall be checked and corrections made where necessary. Such items as condition of gears, ease of operation, condition and position of indicator, etc. , should be checked. " This procedure appears to be adequate. Based on this information demonstrating compliance with the regulation, I am withdrawing this Notice of Amendment Item. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U. S. C. g 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100, 000 per violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1, 000, 000 for any related series of violations. 49 U. S. C. $ 60122 and 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $5, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R $ 195. 402(a)#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 7Item 5a of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5, 000 for violation of 49 C. F. R ( 195. 402(a), as more fully described in the Notice As discussed above in this Final Order, Respondent failed to review several of the procedure manuals referenced in Respondent's DOT Liquids Manual once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months. Respondent contends that the $5000 penalty is excessive given the minor technical nature of the alleged violation This is the second violation of this nature that PHMSA has issued to Respondent, the first was a Warning in CPF 5-2003- 5006. The intent of the rule is to prevent procedures, required by Part 195 for normal, abnormal, emergency and maintenance operations, from becoming ineffective and possibly leading to an incident. This violation is not considered to be trivial. Here, of the 69 miles of pipeline, there is over twenty miles that could affect Drinking Water USAs (" Unusually Sensitive Areas" ) for Billings, Montana and outlying areas. There are two crossings of the Yellowstone River and two crossings of tributaries to the Yellowstone River. The pipeline goes through the south side of Billings, which is a High Population Area. Additionally, there are at least two Other Population Areas, Bridger and Fromber, that could be affected by a crude oil release. There are also some environmentally sensitive USAs along this pipeline's route that could be affected by a release. Given the public and environmental concerns and that this is the second violation of this type in a two year period, this penalty is not considered to be excessive, Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5, 000 for the violation. Respondent has the ability to pay this penalty without adversely affecting its ability to continue in business. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to "U. S. Department of Transportation" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. Federal regulations (49 C, F. R. $ 89. 21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to Financial Operations Division (AMZ- 300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893. Failure to pay the $5, 000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in accordance with 31 U. S. C. f 3717, 31 C, F. R. $ 901. 9 and 49 C. F. R $ 89 23 Pursuant to those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District Court.#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 8COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a Compliance Order with respect to Items 12a and 12b in the Notice, Under 49 U. S. C. g 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipelme facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under Chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U, S. C $ 60118(b) and 49 C. F. R, $ 190. 217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with thc pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations Respondent must- With respect to Item 12a of the Notice, provide docuinentation for the Silvertip pipeline of actions taken to correct deficiencies found during the 2002 and 2003 monitoring surveys; With respect to Item 12b of the Notice, provide docuinentation of those corrective actions taken for CIS 2509+73 to 2518+90, which did not meet the -850 mV critena in 1999 or 2000; Maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Director, Western Region, PHMSA Costs shall be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure; and 4. Within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order, submit documentation of procedures, costs and evidence of actions taken to the Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Suite 110, Lakewood, Colorado 80228. Please refer to CPF No 5-2005-5008 on any correspondence or communication in these matters. The Director, Western Region, PHMSA, may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension, Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $100, 000 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. AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES Items 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the Notice alleged inadequacies in Respondent's procedures/plans and proposed to require amendment of Respondent's procedures to coinply with the requirements of 49 C. F, R. $ g 195. 402 (e)(7) (Notice Item 6), 195. 402(c)(3) and 195. 420(b) (Notice Item 7), 195. 403(c) (Notice Item 8), and 195. 555 (Notice Item 11). Respondent did not contest Notice Item 6 but did contest Notice of Amendment Items 7, 8, and 11. As discussed above, Notice Item 7 was withdrawn.#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 9Item 8 in the Notice alleged inadequacies in complying with 49 C. F. R. )195. 403(c) in that Respondent's process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of emergency procedures currently requires self-validation, i. e, the supervisor must sign that s/he is familiar with procedures without any check or review process to validate his/her knowledge Respondent contested this Notice of Amendment Item by stating that supervisors affirm their knowledge of emergency response procedures and managers review this statement. A supervisor's affirmation of knowledge and subsequent review of this affirmation by the manager is not considered to be verification. Verification should entail some method that ensures that the supervisor knows and understands the emergency response procedures This may include testing or a review of procedures or critiques of a supervisor's actions during emergency response activities, both for tabletop exercises and actual events. Item 11 in the Notice alleged inadequacies in complying with 49 C, F. R 195, 555 in that Respondent's process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of corrosion control procedures currently requires self-validation, i. e. , the supervisor must sign that s/he is familiar with procedures without any check or review process to validate his/her knowledge Respondent contested this Notice of Amendment Item by stating that supervisors affirm their knowledge of corrosion control procedures and managers review this statement. Additionally, Respondent contends that this is the same allegation as Notice Item 8. A supervisor's affirmation of knowledge and subsequent review of this affirmation by the manager is not considered to be verification. Verification should entail some method that ensures that the supervisor knows and understands the CP procedures. This may include testing or a review of procedures or critiques of a supervisor's actions during corrosion control activities. Because the procedures for corrosion do not reside under emergency response procedures, PHMSA considers these two Notice of Amendment Items to be separate As discussed above, Respondent did not contest Notice Item 6, indicating that it is updating its emergency response plan. With respect to Notice Items 7, 8, and 11, Respondent submitted information, which Western Region, PHMSA, reviewed Accordingly, based on the results of this review and the information at hand, I find that Respondent's procedures as described in the Notice for Items 6, 8, and 11 were inadequate to ensure safe operation of its pipeline system; Notice Item 7 was withdrawn. Pursuant to 49 U. S. C. $ 60108(a) and 49 C. F R. (190. 237, Respondent is ordered to make the following revisions to its procedures. Respondent must— I, Amend its procedures/plans with updated emergency response plan contact information, The procedures, includmg contact information, for emergencies should be updated at least once per year at intervals not exceeding 15 months (Notice Item 6), 2. Amend its process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of emergency response procedures to ensure there are adequate checks and balances (Notice Item 8); and 3. Ainend its process for verifying a supervisor's knowledge of corrosion control procedures to ensure there are adequate checks and balances (Notice Item 11).#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 104 Within 30 days following receipt of this Order, submit the amended procedures to the Director, Western Region, PHMSA. The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a written request timely submitted by Respondent demonstrating good cause for an extension, Failure to comply with this Order Directing Amendment may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to $100, 000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in the referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States WARNING ITEMS As noted above, Warning Item 2 in the Notice is dropped The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Notice Item 1 (49 C. F. R $ 195. 112(c)), Notice Item 3 (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 214(b)), Notice Item 4 (49 C, F. R. $ 195, 266(b)), Notice Item 5b (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 402(a)), Notice Item 5c (49 C. F. R. $ 195, 402(a)), Notice Item 9 (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 410(a)(2)(i-ii)), Notice Item 10 (49 C. F. R. $ 195. 428(a)), and Notice Item 13 (49 C, F. R. $ 195. 579(c)) but warned Respondent that it should take appropriate corrective action to correct the items as more fully described in the Notice. Respondent presented information regarding Warning Items 2, 3, 9, and 10 in its Response and/or at the hearing and acknowledged the other Warning Items in the Notice. With respect to Notice Items 3, 9, and 10— Item 3 in the Notice warned that Respondent's welding procedures were missing in the pro]ect documentation for Sugar Plant reroute and the 2000 line lowenng project. 49 C F. R $ 195. 214(b) requires that each welding procedure must be recorded in detail, including the results of the qualifying tests. This record must be retained and followed whenever the procedure is used. Respondent disagreed with this Warmng Letter Item and provided documentation of welding specifications and of one welding procedure. Documents presented by Respondent did not provide any evidence indicating that the provided welding procedure was used during the 2000 line-lowering project, After review of the available information, this is considered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order is attached to this Notice Item. Item 9 in the Notice warned that Respondent's ROW markers at several locations had phone number lettering that was severely faded making reading of the phone number difficult Additionally, several markers had the company name of Exxon and not ExxonMobil. Respondent disputed this Warning Letter Item, stating that although phone numbers were faded they could still be read. PHMSA photos taken during this inspection indicated that the phone numbers on some ROW markers were not legible Respondent did not provide any other evidence for compliance with 49 C. F R $ 195. 410(a)(2)(i-ii) After review of the available information, this is considered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order is attached to this Notice Item Item 10 in the Notice warned that Respondent only documents the data obtained during testing and calibration of the pressure transmitters on its pipeline that assist in metering. It did not document data obtained during the testing and calibration of other pressure transmitters on its#

520055008_final order_01092007_text.pdf, page 11pipeline system. If a pressure transmitter is sending signals to another device or a SCADA system that controls pressure, then that transmitter is considered to be a pressure control device and as such must be tested and inspected and the data be recorded once each calendar year not to exceed 15 months in accordance with 49 C. F. R. $ 195. 428(a), Respondent disagreed with this Warning Letter Item, stating that pressure transmitters that send pressure and flow rate signals to control logic devices or a remote operating control center are not pressure control equipment. Since these devices are integral in the control of pressures for the Silvertip pipeline, PHMSA does not agree with Respondent's mterpretation, After review of the available information, this is considered a Warning Item and neither a civil penalty nor Compliance Order is attached to this Notice Item. With respect to all the Warning Items m the Notice, except for Notice Item 2, Respondent is again warned that if PHMSA finds a violation for any of these items in a subsequent inspection, enforcement action will be taken Under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s), The filing of the petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the Order, including any required corrective action and amendment of procedures, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt. JAN - 9 2007 Date Issued e dore, Willke A ti g Associate Administrator Pipeline Safety#

520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAUG 6 2009 Mr. Gary W. Pruessing President ExxonMobil Pipeline Company 800 Bell Street Room 623F Houston, TX 77002 Re: CPF No. 5-2005-5008 Dear Mr. Pruessing: Enclosed is the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the Notice and terminates this enforcement proceeding, without prejudice, as a matter of administrative discretion. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Wiese Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS Candice Frembling Dykhuizen, Counsel, Law Department, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5678#

520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf, page 2U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 ______________________________ ) In the Matter of ) ) ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 5-2005-5008 ) Respondent. ) ______________________________) FINAL ORDER From June 28 to July 1, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), inspected the facilities and records of the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (EMPCo or Respondent). EMPCo operates a 69-mile hazardous liquid pipeline system that runs from the Silver Tip Station in Carbon County, Montana, to the company’s refinery in Billings, Montana. As a result of that inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to EMPCo, by letter dated February 18, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Notice of Amendment (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that EMPCo had violated Part 195 of the federal pipeline safety regulations, assessing a civil penalty of $5,000 for one of the violations, and ordering the company to take certain actions to correct one of the other violations. The Notice also ordered Respondent to amend its written procedures. By letter dated March 24, 2005 (Response), EMPCo responded to the Notice by disputing some of the alleged violations, opposing the proposed compliance order and civil penalty, and requesting an informal hearing. On January 9, 2007, after a hearing was held, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this matter. As a courtesy to and at the request of EMPCo, however, PHMSA later withdrew the Final Order and held a new hearing on April 12, 2007. The Director has informed PHMSA that a re-inspection of EMPCo’s hazardous liquid pipeline system occurred from July 27 to 30, 2009. WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS Citing the unusual procedural history of this case and the imminent re-inspection of EMPCo’s facilities, the Director has recommended that these proceedings be terminated and that the Items in this Notice be addressed on re-inspection. Accordingly, upon consideration of his recommendation and the unique circumstances of this case, I hereby withdraw the February 2005 Notice without prejudice as a matter of administrative discretion.1 This case is now closed. 1 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).#

520055008_FinalOrder_08062009_text.pdf, page 32 Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent’s receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The terms of the order, including any required corrective action and amendment of procedures, shall remain in full force and effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order shall be effective upon receipt. Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#

520055008_Withdrawal of Final Order_01182007.pdf, page 1Official PDFU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration JAN 1 ? 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Candice Frembling Dykhuizen Counsel ExxonMobil Pipeline Company 800 Bell Street, Ste. PL-EMB-707F Houston, TX 77002 Re: CPF No. 5-2005-5008 Dear Ms. Dykhuizen: Pursuant to your request, this withdraws the Final Order in the above referenced case, and assigns a Presiding Official for a hearing de novo due to the departure of the attorney who acted as the Presiding Official in the previous hearing. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.21 1, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Compliance Order, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Notice of Amendment issued to ExxonMobil on February 18,2005. Denise Desautels, Esq. is the assigned Presiding Official in the case. Please contact her at (202) 366-9085 to schedule a hearing. Sincerely, U o s e p h Ahern Deputy Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. Richard A. Rabinow President ExxonMobil Pipeline Company 800 Bell St. Houston, TX 77002#

520055008_Withdrawal of Final Order_01182007.pdf, page 2Mr. Jimmy James, Operations Manag er-Northern Region ExxonMobil Pipeline Company 3225 Gallows Road Fairfax, VA 22037 Mr. Chris Hoidal, P.E., Director Western Region, PHMSA Ms. Denise Desautels, Presiding Official#