{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520166005","title":"COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-08-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.452(h)(1), 195.452(h)(3), 195.452(h)(4)(ii)(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520166005.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520166005.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520166005","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520166005","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.452(h)(1),  195.452(h)(3),  195.452(h)(4)(ii)(a). The case was opened on 2016-08-26 and is reported as closed as of 2018-06-20. Proposed civil penalty: $198,000. Assessed civil penalty: $154,800. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520166005_Final Order_06012018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166005/520166005_Final%20Order_06012018.pdf\n\n520166005_Final Order_06012018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166005/520166005_Final%20Order_06012018_text.pdf\n\n520166005_NOPV PCP_08262016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166005/520166005_NOPV%20PCP_08262016.pdf\n\n520166005_NOPV PCP_08262016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166005/520166005_NOPV%20PCP_08262016_text.pdf\n\n520166005_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_10052016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520166005/520166005_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_10052016.pdf\n\n520166005_Final Order_06012018_text.pdf\n\nJune 1, 2018\nMr. Thomas A. Martin\nPresident, Natural Gas Pipelines Group\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2016-6005\nDear Mr. Martin:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $154,800 against Colorado Interstate Gas\nCompany, LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc. The penalty payment terms are set forth in\nthe Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service\nof the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing as provided under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Mark A. Kissel, Principal Executive Officer and President, Colorado Interstate\nGas Company, LLC\nMs. Jessica Toll, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, 370 Van Gordon\nStreet, Lakewood, CO 80228\nMs. Catherine D. Little, Esq., Hunton & Williams, Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200,\n600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30308\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n_________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nColorado Interstate Gas Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2016-6005\na subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc., )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n_________________________________________ )\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 10 through August 14, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Colorado\nInterstate Gas Company, LLC (CIG or Respondent), in Sinclair, Wyoming. CIG is a system of\napproximately 6,185 miles of natural gas pipelines and 10 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines.1\nIt transports products from production areas in the U.S. Rocky Mountains and the Anadarko\nBasin to Colorado and Wyoming and indirectly to the Midwest, Southwest, California, and\nPacific Northwest and is owned and operated by Kinder Morgan, Inc.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated August 26, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that CIG\ncommitted five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of\n$198,000 for the alleged violations.\nCIG responded to the Notice by letter dated October 5, 2016 (Response), as supplemented by a\nsubmission dated March 13, 2017. CIG did not contest the alleged violations, but disagreed with\nthe amount of the proposed civil penalty in the Notice and requested a hearing. A hearing was\nsubsequently held on March 22, 2017 in Lakewood, Colorado, with an attorney from the Office\nof Chief Counsel, PHMSA, presiding. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel.\nAfter the hearing, Respondent provided a post-hearing submission by letter dated April 21, 2017\n(Closing).\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (Aug. 25, 2016) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 https://www.kindermorgan.com/pages/business/gas_pipelines/west/CIG/default.aspx (last accessed Jan. 11, 2018).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6005\nPage 2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) …\n(4) Special requirements for scheduling remediation\n(i) …\n(ii) 60-day conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraph (h)(4)(i)\nof this section, an operator must schedule evaluation and remediation of the\nfollowing conditions within 60 days of discovery of condition.\n(A) A dent located on the top of the pipeline (above the 4 and 8 o'clock\npositions) with a depth greater than 3% of the pipeline diameter (greater\nthan 0.250 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter less than Nominal Pipe\nSize (NPS) 12).\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4) by failing to schedule\nevaluation and remediation of an anomalous condition within 60 days of its discovery following\nan integrity assessment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CIG failed to classify a dent\ndiscovered on January 16, 2013, on the top of Line 188-A located above the 4 and 8 o’clock\npositions with a depth greater than three percent of the pipeline diameter (Line 188-A dent) as\nmandating the 60-day requirement for scheduling remediation. In its Response and at the\nhearing, CIG did not contest the allegation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I\nfind that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4) by failing to classify a dent on the top of\nthe pipeline located above the 4 and 8 o’clock positions with a depth greater than three percent of\nthe pipeline diameter as mandating the 60-day requirement for scheduling remediation.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(3), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a)…\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1)…\n(3) Schedule for evaluation and remediation. An operator must complete\nremediation of a condition according to a schedule prioritizing the\nconditions for evaluation and remediation. If an operator cannot meet the\nschedule for any condition, the operator must explain the reasons why it\ncannot meet the schedule and how the changed schedule will not jeopardize\npublic safety or environmental protection.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(3) by failing to complete\nremediation of an anomalous condition according to a schedule prioritizing the conditions for\nevaluation and remediation or alternatively explaining the reasons why it could not meet the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6005\nPage 3\nschedule and how a changed schedule would not jeopardize public safety or environmental\nprotection. Specifically, the Notice alleged that CIG did not complete the remediation of the\nLine 188-A dent until May 1, 2014, which was over 60 days following discovery, nor did it\nexplain the reasons why it could not meet the schedule and how the changed schedule would not\njeopardize public safety or environmental protection. In its Response and at the hearing, CIG did\nnot contest the allegation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(3) by failing to complete remediation of a condition\naccording to a schedule prioritizing the conditions for evaluation and remediation or alternatively\nexplaining the reasons why it could not meet the schedule and how a changed schedule would\nnot jeopardize public safety or environmental protection.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1), which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a)…\n(h) What actions must an operator take to address integrity issues?\n(1) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to\naddress all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the\nintegrity assessment or information analysis. In addressing all conditions,\nan operator must evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that\ncould reduce a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate\nthat the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely to\npose a threat to the long-term integrity of the pipeline. An operator must\ncomply with §195.422 when making a repair.\n(i) Temporary pressure reduction. An operator must notify PHMSA, in\naccordance with paragraph (m) of this section, if the operator cannot meet\nthe schedule for evaluation and remediation required under paragraph (h)(3)\nof this section and cannot provide safety through a temporary reduction in\noperating pressure.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1) by failing to notify\nPHMSA about the lack of prompt action when the scheduled period for evaluation and\nremediation of an anomalous condition that could reduce a pipeline's integrity was not met.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that CIG did not notify PHMSA when the scheduled period for\nevaluation and remediation of the Line 188-A dent was not met and safety was not provided\nthrough a temporary reduction in operating pressure. In its Response and at the hearing, CIG did\nnot contest the allegation. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that\nRespondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1) by failing to notify PHMSA about the lack of\nprompt action when the scheduled period for evaluation and remediation of an anomalous\ncondition that could reduce a pipeline's integrity was not met.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a)…\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6005\nPage 4\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 71∕2 months, but at\nleast twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that\nit is functioning properly.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each\nmainline valve at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that the valve inspections for three CIG pipelines having two\nmainline valves each were conducted annually rather than twice each year between 2012 and\n2014. In its Response and at the hearing, CIG did not contest the allegation.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each mainline valve at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but\nat least twice each calendar year.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a), which states:\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\neach pressure relief valve to ensure adequate capacity, reliability, good condition, and proper\nfunctioning at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that pressure relief valve PCV-93 was not inspected in 2013 and\n2014 and that pressure relief valves PSV-114 and 115 were not inspected in 2013. In its\nResponse and at the hearing, CIG did not contest the allegation.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test each pressure relief valve to ensure adequate capacity,\nreliability, good condition, and proper functioning at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at\nleast once each calendar year.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6005\nPage 5\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.3 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $198,000 for the five violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h)(4), for failing to classify a dent on the top of the pipeline located above the 4 and 8\no’clock positions with a depth greater than three percent of the pipeline diameter as mandating\nspecial requirements for scheduling remediation.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, CIG contended that the proposed penalties in the Notice were\nduplicative, excessive, and failed to account for and appropriately apply the penalty\nconsideration factors.4 Respondent pointed to the fact that Items 1, 2, and 3 involved the same\nfailure to address the dent anomaly identified on Line 188-A on November 13, 2002, and argued\nthat the Notice effectively alleged the same violation three separate times.5 CIG submits that the\nproposed penalties for Items 2 and 3 should be withdrawn because they are duplicative of Item\n1.6 Respondent also argued for a reduction in the Item 1 penalty amount.\nFor its part, OPS disagreed that Items 1, 2, and 3 were duplicative and argued that they relied on\ndifferent evidence. Specifically, OPS argued that the regulation cited in Item 1 was intended to\nensure repairs would be properly prioritized in developing the schedule and cited the absence of\nthe schedule. OPS argued that the regulation cited in Item 2 focused on performing the repair\nand noted that it was possible to schedule repairs but not complete them and vice versa. OPS\nalso explained that Item 3 focused on the reporting requirement which involved yet a different\nact or omission.\nHaving considered the arguments of both parties, I find that OPS was able to establish that Items\n1, 2, and 3 are separate violations because the evidence for each does not entirely overlap with\nany other. I also find, however, that Respondent raised a compelling fairness concern in arguing\nthat the proposed civil penalties for these items overlapped insofar as Items 1 and 2 are\nconcerned. The particular regulatory language cited in the Item 2 violation involving failure to\ncomplete remediation “according to a schedule…” in effect re-codified the matter of scheduling\n3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n4 Pre-Hearing Submittal at 4.\n5 Id. at 5.\n6 Post-Hearing Submittal at 3.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6005\nPage 6\ninto the repair requirement making an additional citation to the scheduling regulation in Item 1\ngenerally unnecessary in cases where an operator failed to schedule and repair. The manner in\nwhich these particular regulations were drafted, whether inadvertently or not, included both\nscheduling and repair in the regulation cited in Item 2, making it partially overlap with the\nrequirement for a schedule in the regulation cited in Item 1.\nTwo Notice items can be upheld as separate violations because they do not overlap entirely in\nterms of evidence. With respect to imposing penalties, however, to the extent that at least some\nof the conduct required (or prohibited) by two given regulations overlaps, fairness can compel\nthe merging of the proposed penalty for the narrower violation with that of the broader violation\nunder the “other matters as justice may require” factor. In this instance, CIG had no way of\nknowing which fraction of the proposed penalty for the broader Item 2 violation (i.e., schedule\nand complete a repair) was for the conduct that went beyond the conduct prohibited by the\nnarrower Item 1 violation (i.e., a schedule only). The agency’s enforcement goals are not\nfurthered by the aggregation of penalties under the code sections cited in the Notice in this\nparticular case. Based upon the foregoing, I withdraw the proposed penalty amount for violation\nof 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(4). The penalty for failing to schedule and complete the repair will be\nassessed below in Item 2.\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h)(3), for failing to complete remediation of a condition according to a schedule\nprioritizing the conditions for evaluation and remediation or alternatively explaining the reasons\nwhy it could not meet the schedule and how a changed schedule would not jeopardize public\nsafety or environmental protection. In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent argued that\nthe proposed penalties for Items 1, 2, and 3 were duplicative and involved the same failure to\naddress the dent anomaly identified on Line 188-A. As discussed above, the penalty proposed\nfor Item 1 has been withdrawn based on the “other matters as justice may require” factor and I\nwill now apply the penalty factors to this item.\nWith respect to the nature and circumstances of CIG’s violation of § 195.452(h)(3), an effective\nintegrity management program is a key part of sound pipeline operations. With respect to the\ngravity of the offense, the failure to take prompt remedial action following the discovery of a\ndent with metal loss continued for over one year, well beyond the 60-day regulatory deadline and\nrepresents a significant compromise to the safe operation of the pipeline. Although the length of\npipe affected was not extensive when compared with the overall size of the system, it transported\nhighly volatile liquids which are among the highest risk products transported by pipeline if an\naccidental release should occur. With respect to culpability, CIG explained that the violation\nwas the result of maintenance intervals for gas pipelines under Part 192 inadvertently being used\nfor this hazardous liquid system.7 OPS countered that even if CIG believed it was operating\nunder Part 192, the discovery of the dent with metal loss should have triggered prompt remedial\naction such as a reduction in operating pressure which did not occur. CIG also noted that the\nnon-compliance was corrected by the operator prior to the OPS inspection, however a credit for\nthis was already reflected in the proposed civil penalty amount. In addition, the record supports\nthe proposed treatment of the factors for prior offenses and good faith. Respondent has\n7 Id. at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6005\nPage 7\npresented no information or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the amount of the civil\npenalty proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $43,200 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(3).\nItem 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(h)(1), for failing to notify PHMSA about the lack of prompt action when the\nscheduled period for evaluation and remediation of an anomalous condition that could reduce a\npipeline's integrity was not met. In its Response and at the hearing, Respondent argued that the\nproposed penalties for Items 1, 2, and 3 were duplicative and involved the same failure to\naddress the dent anomaly identified on Line 188-A. As discussed above, the penalty proposed\nfor Item 1 has been withdrawn based on the “other matters as justice may require” factor.\nRespondent’s argument that Item 3 was duplicative with another penalized item was\nunpersuasive. Respondent’s obligation to notify PHMSA concerning the lack of prompt action\ndid not arise until after the 60-day period following discovery of the condition and therefore\nconstituted a distinct act or omission that did not involve any overlapping conduct with Item 2.\nWith respect to the nature and circumstances of CIG’s violation of § 195.452(h)(1), an effective\nintegrity management program is a key part of sound pipeline operations. With respect to the\ngravity of the offense, failure to comply with the notification requirement in the absence of\nprompt remedial action following the discovery of a dent with metal loss impedes other steps\nfrom being taken to protect the public where necessary which represents a significant\ncompromise to safe operation of the pipeline. With respect to culpability, CIG explained that the\nviolation was the result of maintenance intervals for gas pipelines under Part 192 inadvertently\nbeing used for this hazardous liquid system. OPS countered that even if CIG believed it was\noperating under Part 192, the discovery of the dent with metal loss should have triggered prompt\nremedial action such as a reduction in operating pressure which did not occur. CIG also noted\nthat the non-compliance was corrected by the operator prior to the OPS inspection, however a\ncredit for this was already reflected in the proposed civil penalty amount. In addition, the record\nsupports the proposed treatment of the factors for prior offenses and good faith. Respondent has\npresented no information or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the amount of the civil\npenalty proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $43,200 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(h)(1).\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $34,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.420(b), for failing to inspect each mainline valve at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months,\nbut at least twice each calendar year. With respect to the nature and circumstances of CIG’s\nviolation of § 195.420(b), the timely inspection of mainline valves is a basic code requirement.\nWith respect to the gravity of the offense, ensuring the proper functioning of mainline valves is a\nkey part of safety because the failure of such a valve to fully close when needed could\ncompromise safety. With respect to culpability, CIG explained that the violation was the result\nof maintenance intervals for gas pipelines under Part 192 inadvertently being used for this\nhazardous liquid system. OPS countered that even if CIG believed it was operating under Part\n192, the discovery of the dent with metal loss should have triggered prompt remedial action such\nas a reduction in operating pressure which did not occur. CIG also noted that the non-\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6005\nPage 8\ncompliance was corrected by the operator prior to the OPS inspection, however a credit for this\nwas already reflected in the proposed civil penalty amount. In addition, the record supports the\nproposed treatment of the factors for prior offenses and good faith. Respondent has presented no\ninformation or arguments that would warrant a reduction in the amount of the civil penalty\nproposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and\nconsidered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $34,200 for violation of\n49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $34,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.428(a), for failing to inspect and test each pressure relief valve to ensure adequate\ncapacity, reliability, good condition, and proper functioning at intervals not exceeding 15\nmonths, but at least once each calendar year. With respect to the nature and circumstances of\nCIG’s violation of § 195.428(a), inspecting pressure relief devices is a basic code requirement.\nWith respect to the gravity of the offense, ensuring the proper functioning of these devices is a\nkey part of safety because the failure of a pressure relief valve can compromise safety in the\nevent of a pressure surge or other abnormal event. With respect to culpability, CIG explained\nthat the violation was the result of maintenance intervals for gas pipelines under Part 192\ninadvertently being used for this hazardous liquid system. OPS countered that even if CIG\nbelieved it was operating under Part 192, the discovery of the dent with metal loss should have\ntriggered prompt remedial action such as a reduction in operating pressure which did not occur.\nCIG also noted that the non-compliance was corrected by the operator prior to the OPS\ninspection, however a credit for this was already reflected in the proposed civil penalty amount.\nIn addition, the record supports the proposed treatment of the factors for prior offenses and good\nfaith. Respondent has presented no information or arguments that would warrant a reduction in\nthe amount of the civil penalty proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$34,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.428(a).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $154,800.\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 such payment to 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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $154,800 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual\nrate in 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 district\ncourt of the United States.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2016-6005\nPage 9\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nJune 1, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29207}