ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF520155015_Operator Response to Notice_08132015.pdf#

520155015_NOPV PCP PCO_07102015_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY and PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED July 10, 2015 Mr. Thomas Barrett President & CEO Alyeska Pipeline Service Company P.O. Box 196660 Anchorage, AK 99519 CPF 5-2015-5015 Dear Mr. Stokes: Between April 23, 2013 and March 27, 2014, representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, inspected the records and facilities of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company’s (Alyeska) Trans Alaska Pipeline System, known as TAPS. This inspection included site visits to Pump Station 1 through Pump Station 12 and the Valdez Marine Terminal (VMT). In addition, operating and maintenance procedures and supporting implementation records were reviewed in your Anchorage, Alaska office.#

520155015_NOPV PCP PCO_07102015_text.pdf, page 2As a result of the inspection, it appears that you have committed probable violations of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and the probable violations are: 1. §195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks. (b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Standard 653 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3). Alyeska did not perform monthly in-service inspections of low pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks required by API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2. During the inspection performed by PHMSA and in additional discussions with Alyeska compliance personnel, Alyeska staff stated that monthly inspections were not being conducted at Pump Station 7 from August 2010 through September 2011. Furthermore, our staff learned that only quarterly inspections were being conducted at Pump Station 12 from July 2012 through March 2014. Alyeska staff stated the rationale was it was a cold restart tank only and not considered to be “in-service.” Alyeska must conduct monthly inspections of all PHMSA regulated aboveground breakout tanks that are defined to be part of the “pipeline system,” and in accordance with API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2. 2. §195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters. (b) Except for offshore pipelines, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 5 years, inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing. Alyeska did not inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years. When requested to provide the inspection records for inspections of TAPS’ buried navigable waterway crossings, Alyeska staff only provided a record for the Chena River crossing. Alyeska staff further stated that the Chena River crossing was the only waterway crossing the company inspected per §195.412(b). Alyeska identifies several navigable waters which the TAPS crosses. In Table 52 of Alyeska document, DB-180 – Design Basis Update, Edition 6, Revision 2, dated March 27, 2013, Alyeska identified the Klutina River, Lowe River, Salcha River, and several other buried waterway crossings they considered navigable. In addition, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) has published a list of navigable waters of Alaska (Navigable Waters of the United States within the Seventeenth Coast Guard District, Revision Date: March 2012). The USCG’s list of navigable waters includes several navigable waterways where TAPS was installed utilizing a buried, trench crossing. These trenched crossings include but are not limited to the Klutina River, Lowe River, and Salcha River. Alyeska is required to inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years. Currently, Alyeska is only#

520155015_NOPV PCP PCO_07102015_text.pdf, page 3inspecting the Chena River crossing and is not inspecting the other rivers designated as navigable by the USCG. 3. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control? (d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651. Alyeska is required by §195.573 to inspect each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651. Alyeska did not provide tank cathodic protection potential survey records for the PS12 breakout tank for the year 2010. Alyeska was able to provide cathodic protection survey records for 2011 and 2012. Proposed Civil Penalty Under 49 United States Code, § 60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable violation(s) and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $104,500 as follows: Item number PENALTY Item 1 $ 26,100 Item 2 $ 52,500 Item 3 $ 25,900 Proposed Compliance Order With respect to item 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Alyeska. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a part of this Notice. Response to this Notice Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response options. All material submit in response to this enforcement action may be 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#

520155015_NOPV PCP PCO_07102015_text.pdf, page 4information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). 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 a Final Order. In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2015-5015 and for each document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible. Sincerely, Chris Hoidal Director, Western Region Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Enclosure: Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry PHP-500 R. Guisinger/D. Johnson (#143270)#

520155015_NOPV PCP PCO_07102015_text.pdf, page 5PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Alyeska Pipeline Service Company a Compliance Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Alyeska with the pipeline safety regulations: 1. In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years, Alyeska must do the following: a. Identify and list all locations where TAPS crosses under a navigable waterway within 30 days after receipt of the Final Order. b. Modify Alyeska’s Operation and Maintenance (O&M) procedures to require inspection of each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years. Our Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2015-01) regarding flooding, scour and river migration, dated April 9, 2015, should be reviewed and addressed in your procedure modifications. Complete the O&M revisions within 90 days after receipt of the Final Order. c. Inspect each TAPS crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing. Complete inspection of each navigable water crossing within 365 days after receipt of the Final Order. This Proposed Compliance Order does not modify the current inspection cycle for the Chena River crossing. 2. It is requested (not mandated) that Alyeska maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs 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.#

520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFNovember 22, 2016 Mr. Thomas Barrett President & CEO Alyeska Pipeline Service Company P.O. Box 196660 Anchorage, AK 99519 Re: CPF No. 5-2015-5015 Dear Mr. Barrett: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, withdraws one alleged violation, and assesses a civil penalty of $52,000. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Alan K. Mayberry Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety Enclosure cc: Mr. Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, OPS Mr. Rod Hanson, Sr. Vice-President, Operations & Maintenance, Alyeska CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED#

520155015_Final Order_11222016_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 ) ) Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, ) CPF No. 5-2015-5015 ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) FINAL ORDER Between April 23, 2013 and March 27, 2014, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company’s (Alyeska or Respondent) Trans Alaska Pipeline System, known as TAPS. This inspection included site visits to Respondent’s Pump Station 1 through Pump Station 12 and the Valdez Marine Terminal. In addition, operating and maintenance procedures and supporting implementation records were reviewed in Alyeska’s Anchorage, Alaska office. Alyeska operates TAPS, an 800-mile-long pipeline that transports crude oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, Alaska.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated July 10, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Alyeska had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432, 195.412 and 195.573 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $104,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated August 13, 2015 (Response). The company did not contest the allegations of violations relating to §195.432 (Item 1) and § 195.573 (Item 3) and agreed to pay the proposed civil penalties for those items, totaling $52,000, as provided in 49 C.F.R. § 190.227. The company contested the allegation related to § 195.412 (Item 2), offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty relating to Item 2 be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. 1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (July 10, 2015) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.#

520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 5-2015-5015 Page 2 FINDINGS OF VIOLATION In its Response, Alyeska did not contest the allegations in the Notice relating to Items 1 and 3, that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b), which states: § 195.432 Inspection of in-service breakout tanks. (a) …. (b) Each operator must inspect the physical integrity of in-service atmospheric and low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks according to API Std 653 (except section 6.4.3, Alternative Internal Inspection Interval) (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). However, if structural conditions prevent access to the tank bottom, its integrity may be assessed according to a plan included in the operations and maintenance manual under §195.402(c)(3). The risk-based internal inspection procedures in API Std 653, section 6.4.3 cannot be used to determine the internal inspection interval. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to perform monthly in-service inspections of low-pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks required by API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2.2 Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the inspection performed by PHMSA, and in additional discussions with Alyeska compliance personnel, Respondent’s staff stated that monthly inspections had not been conducted at Pump Station 7 from August 2010 through September 2011. Furthermore, PHMSA staff learned that only quarterly inspections had been conducted at Pump Station 12 from July 2012 through March 2014. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.432(b) by failing to perform monthly in-service inspections of low pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks required by API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2. Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d), which states: § 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control? (a) …. (d) Breakout tanks. You must inspect each cathodic protection system used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API RP 651 (incorporated by reference, see §195.3). However, this inspection is not required if you note in the corrosion control procedures established under §195.402(c)(3) why complying with all or certain operation and maintenance provisions of API RP 651 is not necessary for the safety of the tank. 2 API Std 653, section 6.3.1.2 states that the interval of routine in-service inspections from the outside of the breakout tank shall be consistent with conditions at the particular site, but shall not exceed one month.#

520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 5-2015-5015 Page 3 The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each of its cathodic protection systems used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank, so as to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Alyeska could not provide tank cathodic protection potential survey records for the PS 12 breakout tank for 2010. Respondent could only provide such records for its PS12 breakout tank for 2011 and 2012. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(d) by failing to inspect each of its cathodic protection systems used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank, so as to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651. These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement action taken against Respondent. In its Response, Alyeska contested the allegation in the Notice relating to Item 2, that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows: Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(b), which states: § 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters. (a) …. (b) Except for offshore pipelines, each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 5 years, inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(b) by failing to inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years. Specifically, the Notice alleged that when requested to provide the inspection records for inspections of TAPS’s buried navigable waterway crossings, Alyeska staff only provided a record for the Chena River crossing. The Notice alleged that TAPS contains several other buried pipelines that cross under navigable waterways, including, but not limited to, crossing under the Klutina River, Lowe River, and Salcha River. During the inspection, Alyeska staff allegedly stated that the Chena River crossing was the only waterway crossing Respondent inspected per § 195.412(b). In its Response, Alyeska stated that it fully complied with § 195.412(b) because the Chena River Crossing is the only commercially navigable waterway crossed underneath by the TAPS. Alyeska asserted that a “navigable waterway” for the purposes of § 195.412(b) is a “commercially navigable waterway” and, therefore, the Chena River is the only “navigable waterway” for purposes of § 195.412(b) that the TAPS crosses. Alyeska argued that it used PHMSA’s preferred database, the National Waterways Network (NWN), to identify commercially navigable waterways that are potentially regulated under#

520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 5-2015-5015 Page 4 §195.412.3 The NWN identified only two rivers that are crossed by Respondent – the Yukon River and the Chena River.4 Respondent eliminated the Yukon River because the pipe does not cross “under” the river, but rather crosses the river by bridge, leaving only the Chena River that is subject to § 195.412(b).5 Alyeska stated that PHMSA defines a “navigable waterway” as a “commercially navigable waterway” in a January 29, 2001 Letter of Interpretation.6 In that letter, in response to a request from a pipeline operator for clarification of the definition of “navigable waterways” for purposes of compliance with § 195.412(b), PHMSA stated that “navigable waterways” were waterways that had been designated as “commercially navigable waterways” by the NWN.7 Having reviewed the evidence, I find Alyeska correctly notes that § 195.412(b) does not define “navigable waterway” nor is it expressly defined anywhere in 49 C.F.R. Part 195.8 On September 8, 2000, PHMSA issued a rule addressing the abandonment of underwater pipeline facilities.9 In this rule, PHMSA defined “navigable waterways” as “commercially navigable waterways… where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists.”10 The 2000 Rule also noted that “guidance in determining the affected waterways is available in a geographic database of navigable waterways in and around the United States…called the National Waterways Network (NWN).”11 While the 2000 Rule addressed changes in §195.59, PHMSA has since issued guidance applying this definition of “navigable waterways” and the use of the NWN to §195.412.12 3 Respondent provided a copy of from the NWN listing the State of Alaska Waterways. Response, Ex. E. 4 Response at 4. 5 Response at 4. 6 Response at 4; Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1 (Jan. 29, 2001), available at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.6f23687cf7b00b0f22e4c6962d9c8789/?vgnextoid=228571 dd2f4a6410VgnVCM100000d2c97898RCRD&vgnextchannel=2b9b34d513f95410VgnVCM100000d2c97898RCR D&vgnextfmt=print. 7 Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1. 8 Response at 3. 9 Pipeline Safety: Underwater Abandoned Pipeline Facilities, Final Rule, 65 FR 54,440 (Sep. 8, 2000) (2000 Rule). 10 2000 Rule at 54,442 11 2000 Rule at 54,442. 12 Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195 Subpart F, § 195.412 at 51-56 (Dec. 1, 2014) (noting that “[t]he specific requirement for an underwater pipeline crossing inspection needs to be based on actual commercial water traffic in that area”); Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1.#

520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 5-2015-5015 Page 5 In the January 29, 2001 Letter of Interpretation, PHMSA stated that the “National Waterways Network (NWN) database is the basis we use to identify commercially navigable waterways. Our use of this database replaces the use of the referenced USCG designation.”13 It further stated that the waterway at issue was subject to §195.412 because it was “considered commercially navigable and that it will be included in the next annual release of the National Waterways dataset in March of 200l. Therefore, we will continue to regard this river as commercially navigable under the published classifications.”14 PHMSA’s Operations & Maintenance Enforcement Guidelines, published as a reference tool for operators, supports the incorporation of the 2000 Rule’s definition of “navigable waterways” in §195.412, stating that “[t]he specific requirement for an underwater pipeline crossing inspection needs to be based on actual commercial water traffic in that area.”15 In its Recommendation, OPS relied on a November 1973 Interpretation letter to define “navigable waterway”.16 This letter definition is broader than that of the 2000 Rule: navigable waters of the United States shall be construed to mean those waters of the United States, including the territorial seas adjacent thereto, the general character of which is navigable, and which, either by themselves or by uniting with other waters, form a continuous waterway on which boats or vessels may navigate or travel between two or more States, or to or from foreign nations .... 17 OPS argues that PHMSA’s preferred database defining “navigable waterways” is that the United States Coast Guard (USGC) database and that under the USCG, Respondent has an obligation to inspect far more crossings that the Chena River crossing.18 While OPS is correct that the 1973 Interpretation letter defined “navigable waterway,” I find that the 2000 Rule and PHMSA’s subsequent guidance delineate PHMSA’s current definition and treatment of a “navigable waterway.” It is therefore reasonable for operators to conclude that a “navigable waterway” is a “commercially navigable waterway.” Applying this definition to Alyeska’s system, the Chena River is the only “navigable waterway” for purposes of § 195.412(b) under which the TAPS crosses because it is the only waterway crossing “where a substantial likelihood of commercial navigation exists.” 13 Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1. 14 Marathon Ashland Pipeline LLC, Letter of Interpretation, PL-01-0100 at 1. 15 Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance, Part 195 Subpart F, § 195.412 at 55. 16 Recommendation at 4. Note: the correct date of the letter of interpretation is November 16, 1973. Colonial Pipeline Company, Letter of Interpretation, PI-73-037 (Oct. 18, 1973). OPS also references a June 18, 1994 Letter of Interpretation. A copy of this letter was not provided and could not be located. 17 Colonial Pipeline Company, Letter of Interpretation, PI-73-037. 18 Recommendation at 2.#

520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf, page 7CPF No. 5-2015-5015 Page 6 Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Alyeska did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(b) by failing to inspect each crossing under a navigable waterway to determine the condition of the crossing at intervals not exceeding five years because the at issue waterways are not commercially navigable waterways. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations. In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $104,500 for the violations cited above. Items 1 and 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $52,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.432 for failing to perform monthly in-service inspections of low pressure steel aboveground breakout tanks required by API Standard 653 section 6.3.1.2, and Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573 for failing to inspect each of its cathodic protection systems used to control corrosion on the bottom of an aboveground breakout tank, so as to ensure that operation and maintenance of the system are in accordance with API Recommended Practice 651. Respondent did not contest these violations and agreed to pay the proposed civil penalties. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $52,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.432 and 195.573. Item 2 has been withdrawn and, therefore, there is no civil penalty associated with Item 2. In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $52,000. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such 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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S Macarthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, OK 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845. Failure to pay the $52,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate#

520155015_Final Order_11222016_text.pdf, page 8CPF No. 5-2015-5015 Page 7 in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 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 district court of the United States. COMPLIANCE ORDER The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 2 in the Notice for a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(b). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Item 2 has been withdrawn, and therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 2 are not included in this Order. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of this Final Order by the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. November 22, 2016 ________________________________________ ___________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#