{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520105013","title":"MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2010-04-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.401(b), 195.410(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105013.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105013.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520105013","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520105013","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.401(b),  195.410(a)(1). The case was opened on 2010-04-26 and is reported as closed as of 2011-06-14. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520105013_closure letter_06142011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_closure%20letter_06142011.pdf\n\n520105013_closure letter_06142011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_closure%20letter_06142011_text.pdf\n\n520105013_FinalOrder_02182011 .pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_FinalOrder_02182011%20.pdf\n\n520105013_FinalOrder_02182011_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_FinalOrder_02182011_text.pdf\n\n520105013_NOPV PCO_04262010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_NOPV%20PCO_04262010.pdf\n\n520105013_NOPV PCO_04262010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_NOPV%20PCO_04262010_text.pdf\n\n520105013_Operator Response to Final Order_04082011.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_Operator%20Response%20to%20Final%20Order_04082011.pdf\n\n520105013_operator response_06012010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_operator%20response_06012010.pdf\n\n520105013_operator response_06302010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520105013/520105013_operator%20response_06302010.pdf\n\n520105013_closure letter_06142011_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nJune 14, 2011\nMr. John Swearingen\nPresident\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nCPF 5-2010-5013\nDear Mr. Swearingen:\nOn February 18, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)\nissued to Marathon Pipe Line LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order\nincluded a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation you provided, it has\nbeen determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 M. Petronis (#124323)\n\n520105013_FinalOrder_02182011 .pdf\n\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nFEB 1 8 2011\nMr. John Swearingen\nPresident\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nRe: CPF No. 5-2010-5013\nDear Mr. Swearingen:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Marathon Pipe Line LLC to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nMant Magey\nfor: Jeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\nMr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA\nMr. Randy M. Thomson\nEnvironmental, Safety, and Regulatory Compliance Supervisor\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 11600001 0041 3153]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC,\nCPF No. 5-2010-5013\nRespondent.\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 13-16, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Marathon Pipe\nLine LLC (MPL or Respondent) in Wyoming. MPL, a subsidiary of Marathon Oil Corporation,\noperates more than 5,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines in 16 states, primarily in the eastern\nUnited States.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 26, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that MPL had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b) and 195.410(a)(1) and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nMPL responded to the Notice by letters and emails dated June 1, 2010, June 30, 2010, August\n23, 2010, and October 28, 2010 (collectively, Response). The company contested one of the\nallegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the\nproposed violation be withdrawn. The company did not contest the other allegation of violation\nbut provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.401(b), as follows:\n' Marathon Oil Corporation, http://www.marathon.com/Global_Operations/Refining_Marketing_and_Transportation\n/Transportation_and_Logistics/ (last visited December 17, 2010).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b), which states:\n§ 195.401 General requirements.\n(a)\n(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely\naffect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a\nreasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it\npresents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not\noperate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe\ncondition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b) by failing to address\nconditions that could adversely affect the operation of its pipeline. Specifically, it alleged that a\n\"very loud and distinct 'gravelly' sound\" emanated from the pipeline immediately downstream\nfrom the pressure-reducing control valve at Casper Station, indicating possible cavitation? The\nNotice further alleged that the ball valve immediately downstream of the control valve was\npartially closed, and that this was not an acceptable use of such a valve.?\nIn its Response, MPL stated that source of the noise identified by the OPS inspector was an\norifice plate that it installed in 2003 to assist in the control valve holding backpressure.*\nRespondent did not dispute the fact that the orifice plate could cause cavitation, or that the latter\nphenomena could damage pipeline equipment.\nHowever, MPL provided evidence, obtained by way of a May 26, 2010 inspection, that this\ncondition had no observable impact on the pipe, plug valve, or orifice downstream of the control\nvalve. Respondent also stated that it has never experienced a pipeline failure due to cavitation,\nand that it did not believe that the conditions observed could affect the safe operation of its\nsystem.\nFurther, with regard to the allegation that the ball valve was being used in an unacceptable\nmanner, Respondent indicated that the valve was actually a plug valve being used for equipment\n2 Notice at 4. Cavitation is \"[the formation and collapse, within a liquid, of cavities or bubbles that contain vapor or\ngas or both. In general, cavitation originates from a decrease in static pressure in the liquid. It is distinguished in\nHandbook 11 (Desk ed., 2nd ed. 1998). Cavitation can cause what is known as \"cavitation erosion.\" the\nthis way from boiling, which originates from an increase in the liquid temperature.\" ASM International, Metals\n\"[p]rogressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to continuing exposure to cavitation.\" Id. at 12. It\nexposure to cavitation[,] ... [which] may include the loss of material, surface deformation, or changes in properties\ncan also cause what is known as \"cavitation damage,\" i.e., \"[the degradation of a solid body resulting from its\nor appearance.\" Id.\n3 Id.\n* Respondent's Response to the Notice (Response) dated June 1, 2010 at 1.\n5 Response dated August 23, 2010, attached CD file folder Cavitation Information.\n\" Response dated June 1, 2010 at 1.\n\n\n\n3\nisolation, not backpressure control. MPL also stated that while the plug valve had now been\nplaced in a full open state, it had never been a threat to the safe operation of the line?\nI do not find the first part of MPL's arguments persuasive. Respondent has not disputed the fact\nthat the orifice plate could be causing cavitation, or that this condition, if left uncorrected, could\nadversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline system through erosion. While MPL has\ndemonstrated that no cavitation erosion has occurred to date, it has not demonstrated that this\nphenomenon will not occur in the future.\nHowever, I am persuaded by the second part of Respondent's argument. The Notice incorrectly\nidentified the plug valve as a ball valve, and the evidence of record does not substantiate the\nallegation that the failure to fully open that valve adversely affected the safe operation of MPL's\npipeline system.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n$ 195.401(b) by failing to address conditions that could adversely affect the operation of its\npipeline.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1), which states:\n$ 195.410 Line markers.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in\naccordance with the following:\n(1) Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at each\nrailroad crossing, and in sufficient number along the remainder of each\nburied line so that its location is accurately known.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1) by failing to place and\nmaintain line markers in sufficient number along each buried line so that its location was\naccurately known.\n• Specifically, the Notice alleged that MPL failed to adequately mark buried\nStation.? In its Response, Marathon did not contest this allegation of violation.'°\npipelines located at road crossings in a housing development located a few miles west of Casper\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. $ 195.410(a)(1) by failing to place and maintain line markers in sufficient number along\neach buried pipeline so that its location was accurately known.\nId. at 2.\n8 Notice at 2.\n' Id.\n1° Response dated June 30, 2010.\n\n\n\n4\nThese findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b) and 195.410(a)(1), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions\nto address one of the cited violations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.410(a)(1) (Item 2), Respondent has\nreplaced missing line markers in the housing development a few miles west of\nCasper Station.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 2 are not included in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49\nC.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with\nthe pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.401(b) (Item 1), Respondent must submit\nan engineering analysis showing whether the cavitation at the Casper Station\ncould affect the safe operation of its pipeline system. If potential long-term\ndamage could occur, Respondent must make appropriate modifications to any\naffected piping and components.\n2. Respondent must complete the above requirements within sixty (60) days of the\nFinal Order.\n3. It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA. It is requested that\nthe costs be reported in two categories: (1) total costs associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and (2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n\" Id. at 2; Response dated August 23, 2010, attached CD file folder Line Marker Information.\n\n\n\n5\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 and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\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.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nMantIlla\nFEB 1 8 2011\nfor Jeffrey D. Wiese\nDate Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520105013_FinalOrder_02182011_text.pdf\n\nFEB 18 2011\nMr. John Swearingen\nPresident\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nRe: CPF No. 5-2010-5013\nDear Mr. Swearingen:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Marathon Pipe Line LLC to comply with\nthe pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been completed, as\ndetermined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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\nMr. Randy M. Thomson\nEnvironmental, Safety, and Regulatory Compliance Supervisor\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC\n539 South Main Street\nFindlay, OH 45840\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 11600001 0041 3153]\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)\nMarathon Pipe Line LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2010-5013\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn July 13-16, 2009, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Marathon Pipe\nLine LLC (MPL or Respondent) in Wyoming. MPL, a subsidiary of Marathon Oil Corporation,\noperates more than 5,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines in 16 states, primarily in the eastern\nUnited States.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 26, 2010, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed\nfinding that MPL had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b) and 195.410(a)(1) and proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nMPL responded to the Notice by letters and emails dated June 1, 2010, June 30, 2010, August\n23, 2010, and October 28, 2010 (collectively, Response). The company contested one of the\nallegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the\nproposed violation be withdrawn. The company did not contest the other allegation of violation\nbut provided information concerning the corrective actions it had taken. Respondent did not\nrequest a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195.401(b), as follows:\n1 Marathon Oil Corporation, http://www.marathon.com/Global_Operations/Refining_Marketing_and_Transportation\n/Transportation_and_Logistics/ (last visited December 17, 2010).\n\n\n\n2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b), which states:\n§ 195.401 General requirements.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Whenever an operator discovers any condition that could adversely\naffect the safe operation of its pipeline system, it shall correct it within a\nreasonable time. However, if the condition is of such a nature that it\npresents an immediate hazard to persons or property, the operator may not\noperate the affected part of the system until it has corrected the unsafe\ncondition.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.401(b) by failing to address\nconditions that could adversely affect the operation of its pipeline. Specifically, it alleged that a\n“very loud and distinct ‘gravelly’ sound” emanated from the pipeline immediately downstream\nfrom the pressure-reducing control valve at Casper Station, indicating possible cavitation.2 The\nNotice further alleged that the ball valve immediately downstream of the control valve was\npartially closed, and that this was not an acceptable use of such a valve.3\nIn its Response, MPL stated that source of the noise identified by the OPS inspector was an\norifice plate that it installed in 2003 to assist in the control valve holding backpressure.\n4\nRespondent did not dispute the fact that the orifice plate could cause cavitation, or that the latter\nphenomena could damage pipeline equipment.\nHowever, MPL provided evidence, obtained by way of a May 26, 2010 inspection, that this\ncondition had no observable impact on the pipe, plug valve, or orifice downstream of the control\nvalve.5 Respondent also stated that it has never experienced a pipeline failure due to cavitation,\nand that it did not believe that the conditions observed could affect the safe operation of its\nsystem.6\nFurther, with regard to the allegation that the ball valve was being used in an unacceptable\nmanner, Respondent indicated that the valve was actually a plug valve being used for equipment\n2 Notice at 4. Cavitation is “[t]he formation and collapse, within a liquid, of cavities or bubbles that contain vapor or\ngas or both. In general, cavitation originates from a decrease in static pressure in the liquid. It is distinguished in\nthis way from boiling, which originates from an increase in the liquid temperature.” ASM International, Metals\nHandbook 11 (Desk ed., 2nd ed. 1998). Cavitation can cause what is known as “cavitation erosion,” the\n“[p]rogressive loss of original material from a solid surface due to continuing exposure to cavitation.” Id. at 12. It\ncan also cause what is known as “cavitation damage,” i.e., “[t]he degradation of a solid body resulting from its\nexposure to cavitation[,] . . . [which] may include the loss of material, surface deformation, or changes in properties\nor appearance.” Id.\n3 Id.\n4 Respondent’s Response to the Notice (Response) dated June 1, 2010 at 1.\n5 Response dated August 23, 2010, attached CD file folder Cavitation Information.\n6 Response dated June 1, 2010 at 1.\n\n\n\n3\nisolation, not backpressure control. MPL also stated that while the plug valve had now been\nplaced in a full open state, it had never been a threat to the safe operation of the line.\n7\nI do not find the first part of MPL’s arguments persuasive. Respondent has not disputed the fact\nthat the orifice plate could be causing cavitation, or that this condition, if left uncorrected, could\nadversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline system through erosion. While MPL has\ndemonstrated that no cavitation erosion has occurred to date, it has not demonstrated that this\nphenomenon will not occur in the future.\nHowever, I am persuaded by the second part of Respondent’s argument. The Notice incorrectly\nidentified the plug valve as a ball valve, and the evidence of record does not substantiate the\nallegation that the failure to fully open that valve adversely affected the safe operation of MPL’s\npipeline system.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.401(b) by failing to address conditions that could adversely affect the operation of its\npipeline.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1), which states:\n§ 195.410 Line markers.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall place and maintain line markers over each buried pipeline in\naccordance with the following:\n(1) Markers must be located at each public road crossing, at each\nrailroad crossing, and in sufficient number along the remainder of each\nburied line so that its location is accurately known.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1) by failing to place and\nmaintain line markers in sufficient number along each buried line so that its location was\naccurately known.8 Specifically, the Notice alleged that MPL failed to adequately mark buried\npipelines located at road crossings in a housing development located a few miles west of Casper\nStation.9 In its Response, Marathon did not contest this allegation of violation.10\nAccordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49\nC.F.R. § 195.410(a)(1) by failing to place and maintain line markers in sufficient number along\neach buried pipeline so that its location was accurately known.\n7 Id. at 2.\n8 Notice at 2.\n9 Id.\n10 Response dated June 30, 2010.\n\n\n\n4\nThese findings of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.401(b) and 195.410(a)(1), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions\nto address one of the cited violations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.410(a)(1) (Item 2), Respondent has\nreplaced missing line markers in the housing development a few miles west of\nCasper Station.11\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 2 are not included in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49\nC.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with\nthe pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.401(b) (Item 1), Respondent must submit\nan engineering analysis showing whether the cavitation at the Casper Station\ncould affect the safe operation of its pipeline system. If potential long-term\ndamage could occur, Respondent must make appropriate modifications to any\naffected piping and components.\n2. Respondent must complete the above requirements within sixty (60) days of the\nFinal Order.\n3. It is requested that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety\nimprovement costs associated with fulfilling this compliance Order and submit\nthe total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, PHMSA. It is requested that\nthe costs be reported in two categories: (1) total costs associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and (2) total cost\nassociated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline\ninfrastructure.\n11 Id. at 2; Response dated August 23, 2010, attached CD file folder Line Marker Information.\n\n\n\n5\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 and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\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.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\n__________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":25396}