{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 52023003NOPV","title":"SFPP, LP — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2023-04-11","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.583(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023003nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023003nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52023003nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52023003NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving SFPP, LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulation as 195.583(c). The case was opened on 2023-04-11 and is reported as closed as of 2024-11-18. Proposed civil penalty: $81,500. Assessed civil penalty: $0. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n52023003NOPV_Final Order_11182024_(22-236099).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_Final%20Order_11182024_(22-236099).pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_Final Order_11182024_(22-236099)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_Final%20Order_11182024_(22-236099)_text.pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_Operator Post-Hearing Brief_03152024_(22-236099).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_Operator%20Post-Hearing%20Brief_03152024_(22-236099).pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_Operator Pre-Hearing Submission_02052024_(22-236099).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_Operator%20Pre-Hearing%20Submission_02052024_(22-236099).pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_Operator RtN and RfH Conference Case File_05112023_(22-236099).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_Operator%20RtN%20and%20RfH%20Conference%20Case%20File_05112023_(22-236099).pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_PCP PCO_04112023_(22-236099).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_PCP%20PCO_04112023_(22-236099).pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_PCP PCO_04112023_(22-236099)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_PCP%20PCO_04112023_(22-236099)_text.pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02012024_(22-236099).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_02012024_(22-236099).pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02012024_(22-236099)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Rescheduled_02012024_(22-236099)_text.pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06222023_(22-236099).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06222023_(22-236099).pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06222023_(22-236099)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52023003NOPV/52023003NOPV_PHC%20Hearing%20Scheduled_06222023_(22-236099)_text.pdf\n\n52023003NOPV_Final Order_11182024_(22-236099)_text.pdf\n\nNovember 18, 2024\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: wayne simmons@kindermorgan.com\nMr. Wayne Simmons\nChief Operating Officer, Products Pipelines\nKinder Morgan, Inc.\n1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 5-2023-003-NOPV\nDear Mr. Simmons:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the\nNotice of Probable Violation issued on April 11, 2023. Accordingly, this case is now closed.\nService of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Zach Ragain, Director, Engineering, Codes and Standards, Kinder Morgan, Inc.,\nzach_ragain@kindermorgan.com\nMr. Matthew Posey, Manager, Codes and Standards, Kinder Morgan Inc.,\nmatthew_posey@kindermorgan.com\n\n\n\nMs. Mary Clair Lyons, Associate General Counsel, Environmental Health and Safety,\nKinder Morgan, Inc., mary_lyons@kindermorgan.com\nMs. Annie Cook, Counsel to Kinder Morgan, Inc., Bracewell, LLC,\nannie.cook@bracewell.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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 )\nKinder Morgan, Inc., ) CPF No. 5-2023-003-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom October 31, 2022 through November 4, 2022, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Kinder Morgan, Inc.’s (KM or Respondent) SFPP Pipeline which runs from Long\nBeach, California to Yuma, Arizona. Respondent’s Santa Fe Products Pipeline Units 33455 and\n33515 transport petroleum products approximately 327.5 miles from Watson Station to the\nArizona-California border.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated April 11, 2023, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that KM had violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c) and proposed assessing a\ncivil penalty of $81,500 for the alleged violation. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent\nto take certain measures to correct the alleged violation.\nKM responded to the Notice by letter dated May 11, 2023 (Response). KM contested the\nallegation and requested an informal hearing. KM submitted additional written material on\nFebruary 5, 2024 (Pre-hearing submission). A hearing was subsequently held on February 14,\n2024, in Lakewood, Colorado before a Presiding Official from the Office of Chief Counsel,\nPHMSA. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel. After the hearing,\nRespondent provided additional written material for the record by letter dated March 15, 2024\n(Post-hearing submission). The Director provided a recommendation on April 15, 2024\n(Recommendation) and KM submitted a reply to the Recommendation on May 10, 2024 (Reply).\n\n\n\nWITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c), which states:\n§ 195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a)…\n(c) If you find atmospheric corrosion during an inspection, you must\nprovide protection against the corrosion as required by § 195.581.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(c) by failing to protect against\natmospheric corrosion as required. Specifically, the Notice alleged that atmospheric corrosion\nwas present on the LS-120 pipeline at a span crossing Compton Creek. The Notice also\nidentified “areas of concern” at the Colton Station.\nIn its Response and at the hearing, KM contested the proposed violation in the NOPV in its\nentirety, claiming it had performed atmospheric corrosion inspections on a timely basis and that\nthe pipe spanning Compton Creek did not contain atmospheric corrosion but instead a light\nsurface oxide. KM claims that because it considers the corrosion identified by PHMSA to be\nmerely light surface oxide, the pipeline is exempt from the coating requirements of § 195.581(a)\npursuant to § 195.581(c).\nPHMSA’s atmospheric corrosion regulations allow a pipeline operator to inspect its onshore\naboveground pipelines every three years for atmospheric corrosion. They also include an\nexemption in § 195.581(c) stating in relevant part that operators:\n(c)…need not protect against atmospheric corrosion any\npipeline for which you demonstrate by test, investigation, or\nexperience appropriate to the environment of the pipeline\nthat corrosion will—\n(1) Only be a light surface oxide; or\n(2) Not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the\nnext scheduled inspection.\nIn other words, if atmospheric corrosion examined by an operator during one of its three-year\ninspections is a light surface oxide, the regulations allow an operator to defer cleaning and\nrepainting that area until the next scheduled inspection that finds atmospheric corrosion that has\nprogressed beyond light surface oxidation (i.e., heavy oxidation and/or pitting has begun).\nWith respect to the photographs relied on as evidence by OPS, it is quite correct that these\nphotographs clearly show the presence of surface oxidation on the span crossing Compton Creek.\nThe photographs show dark, discolored areas where the paint had obvious deficiencies at the\ntime of the OPS inspection. It should not have been a surprise to KM that OPS questioned\n\n\n\nwhether these areas should have been cleaned and painted at the previous three-year interval.1\nIn its Response and at the hearing, KM argued that the darkness and discoloration of the areas in\nthe photographs where the paint had deteriorated was not inconsistent with light surface\noxidation and did not automatically indicate that significant atmospheric corrosion was present.\nRespondent stated:\nSFPP’s evidence indisputably confirms that the pipeline locations at\nissue exhibited nothing more than a light oxide and there was no condition\nthat would affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next\ninspection. Under SFPP’s procedures and consistent with 49 C.F.R. §§\n195.583(c) and 195.581(c), a requirement to recoat or repair the coating was\nnot and is not triggered today.\nKnowledgeable, trained, and experienced SFPP corrosion engineers and\ntechnicians certificated by AMPP in coatings, corrosion assessments,\ncathodic protection, and corrosion control practices performed\ncomprehensive atmospheric corrosion inspections on the areas at issue (see\nTable 1). The corrosion technicians maintain operator qualifications (OQs)\nin atmospheric corrosion monitoring, inspection of coatings, surface\npreparation, application and repair, and they received extensive initial\nrefresher, and on-the-job training from SFPP. “[T]hey, through the year,\nwill conduct [100s], if not [1,000s] of individual site inspections across the\nregion.” Their conclusions were based on investigation, testing, and\nexperience with this very pipeline at this exact location and environment in\narid southern California, as evidenced by SFPP’s atmospheric corrosion\ncontrol procedures and criteria, corrosion technician training and\nqualifications, and results of regular atmospheric corrosion monitoring.\nIn contrast to PHMSA’s cursory visual observations, the detailed\ninspections conducted by qualified SFPP technicians were performed in\nclose proximity to the pipe, in consideration of their experience with the\npipeline environment, and with access to measurement tools as needed (pit\ngauge, fine tip hook probe, ruler, sandpaper).2\nOPS argued that KM’s conclusion that the pipe spanning Compton Creek only evidenced a light\nsurface oxide was based on evaluations Respondent conducted only after the OPS inspection.3 It\nshould be noted, however, that this is not a case where the operator failed to conduct its three-\nyear atmospheric corrosion inspection. KM stated that:\n1 PHMSA Violation Report, Exhibit A.\n2 Post-hearing Submission, at 8.\n3 Recommendation, at 1.\n\n\n\nEach of SFPP’s inspections of the relevant areas referenced in the\nNOPV, performed by qualified corrosion experts, have repeatedly\nconfirmed that the condition of the pipe has been properly designated as\n“fair”3 or “good”4 as defined by SFPP’s procedures. Attachment B: SFPP\nProcedure L-O&M 918, Inspection for Atmospheric Corrosion (Rev 9-11-\n2019). Under SFPP’s procedures and consistent with 49 C.F.R. §\n195.583(c), designations of “fair” and “good” do not trigger a requirement\nto repaint the relevant pipeline segment. Table 1 below details the\ninspections on the LS-120 Compton Creek span and Attachment C includes\na table summarizing the inspections performed at the Colton Station. These\ntables are supported by three affidavits of corrosion SMEs which detail their\ninspections in these areas, the corrosion detection and measurement tools\nemployed, and the experience and considerations brought to bear regarding\nthe pipeline environment. The affidavits also attach the documentation for\nthe inspections described.\nAs it relates to the Compton Creek span, qualified corrosion technician\nBritt Mars performed close inspections in 2019, 2020, and 2021 with the\nuse of a ladder. During the inspections, he had a variety of tools available\nto use as needed and considered the pipe environment, each time confirming\nthe grade of “Fair.” Attachment D: Affidavit of Britt Mars (Feb. 2, 2024).\nBritt Mars recommended that SFPP schedule a more thorough inspection of\nthe span with the use of special equipment, although SFPP was unable to\nperform such inspections in 2022 because the equipment delivered by the\ncontractor did not facilitate a safe work environment.4\nWhile the Notice reflects OPS’ disagreement with Respondent’s judgment that cleaning and\npainting the Compton Creek span would not be necessary until the next three-year interval, it\ndoes not mean that Respondent never made such a judgment at the required interval.\nFollowing the OPS inspection, KM took various additional actions and conducted supplemental\ninspections to confirm whether its judgment that the areas identified by OPS on the span crossing\nCompton Creek qualified for the surface oxidation exemption for another three years was\njustified. Respondent stated that:\nA qualified certificated corrosion professional, Mr. Michael Pyle,\npromptly inspected the areas identified by PHMSA within two months\npursuant to SFPP’s corrosion procedures and nearly three months prior to\nreceipt of the NOPV on April 11, 2013. Mr. Pyle’s January 2023\ncomprehensive inspection of the span validated the prior atmospheric\ncorrosion ratings of “fair,” with “no visible pitting, no measurable pitting\nwith the analog pit gauge, and no measurable wall loss with the ultrasonic\nthickness gauge.” Given the Region’s concerns, Mr. Pyle’s inspection was\nfacilitated with a ladder and included a hands-on evaluation of the areas in\nquestion, cleaning of the pipe surface with fine grit sandpaper, use of an\n4 Pre-hearing Submission, at 5.\n\n\n\nanalog pit gauge, and ultrasonic wall loss tool measurement for the purpose\nof identifying any measurable corrosion. Further, results of ILI assessment\nperformed in the middle of the Region’s audit on November 1, 2022\nconfirmed again that there was no measurable wall loss in these areas that\ncould affect the safe operation of the pipe before the next inspection, no\nsafety hazard, and no significant risk to safe operation.\nIn November of 2023, qualified AMPP certificated SFPP corrosion\nprofessional, Mr. Walter Yarbrough, performed a visual and hands-on\nevaluation of the Compton Creek span and the Colton Station areas at issue,\nincluding ultrasonic wall loss tool measurements at the request of the\nWestern Region. This comprehensive inspection and analysis confirmed the\nprior atmospheric corrosion rating of “fair,” with the results of pit gauge\nand ultrasonic wall loss measurement tool finding that there was no\nmeasurable wall loss. SFPP also engaged third-party corrosion expert, Mr.\nGarrity, to perform a review and analysis of the pipeline areas at issue which\nwas undertaken in January of 2024, to independently verify SFPP’s prior\natmospheric corrosion monitoring inspections and the Region’s allegations\nin the NOPV and PSVR. Mr. Garrity observed the areas firsthand with the\nassistance of a ladder, employing measurement tools, SCAT sampling, pH\nsampling, and consideration of the pipeline environment. His\ncomprehensive evaluation of the Compton Creek span and Colton Station\nfurther confirmed that there was no actionable atmospheric corrosion under\nthe PHMSA regulations, no measurable wall loss, and nothing beyond a\nlight surface oxide in certain areas.5\nIn addition, KM provided information showing that after the OPS inspection, it conducted an\nultrasonic wall loss measurement on the area identified by OPS to further confirm that there was\nno metal loss or pitting on the pipe surface.\n6\nRespondent also pointed out that the relevant rulemaking provided pipeline operators with\nsignificant flexibility when deciding to coat pipelines:\nFinal § 195.581 gives operators flexibility when deciding to coat\npipelines where atmospheric corrosion will be limited to a light surface\noxide, or will not affect the safe operation of the pipeline before the next\nscheduled inspection.\nFinal Rule, Controlling Corrosion on Hazardous Liquid and Carbon\nDioxide Pipelines, 66 Fed. Reg. 66994, 67001 (Dec. 27, 2001). In response\nto a public commenter that opposed the requirement that would allow pipe\nto “remain unprotected and unrepaired,” the rulemaking preamble further\nclarified (id. (emphasis added)):\n5 Reply, at 10.\n6 Post-hearing Submission, at 8.\n\n\n\n[T]he need for coating would be reviewed again in 3 years. A 3-year\ndelay in coating a pipeline judged to be safe should not jeopardize public\nsafety, considering that atmospheric corrosion generally progresses at a\nslow rate. Therefore, we did not adopt [the public commenter’s] comment.\nNevertheless, mindful of [the public commenter’s] concern, we edited the\nfinal wording to clarify that any decision not to coat a particular pipeline\nmust be supported by testing, investigation, or experience relevant to that\npipeline.7\nKM also noted that the enforcement guidance that was available about how heavy the\natmospheric corrosion must be to trigger the cleaning and coating requirement was far more\nsupportive of its position than that of OPS:\nPHMSA guidance also provides that a light surface oxide means\n“general oxidation of the metal where there is no associated loss of metal”\nor “the slow rusting of pipe which is not yet considered to be atmospheric\ncorrosion because there is no evidence of metal loss.” PHMSA Corrosion\nEnforcement Guidance Part 195 at 87, 90 (Jun. 22, 2016). Consistent with\nthis guidance, PHMSA has explained with respect to the corollary Part 192\nprovision, “that a light surface oxide is a non- damaging form of corrosion\nthat does not need remedial action” and that it “believes operators should\nhave the option of assigning resources to problems that pose a higher near-\nterm risk.” See Final Rule, Further Regulatory Review: Gas Pipeline Safety\nStandards, 68 Fed. Reg. 53895, 53897-98 (Sept. 15, 2003); see also Notice\nof Proposed Rulemaking, Controlling Corrosion on Hazardous Liquid and\nCarbon Dioxide Pipelines, 65 Fed. Reg. 76968, 75978 (Dec. 8, 2000)\n(rejecting a request to “except all but ‘active corrosion’ from the\natmospheric corrosion protection requirement” and explaining “[t]he intent\nof the recommendation is to distinguish harmless rust from serious metal\nloss”). PHMSA has also recognized that light surface oxide may even be\nbeneficial and protective of the pipe surface. See PHMSA Corrosion\nEnforcement Guidance Part 195 at 90 (Jun. 22, 2016) (“Some corrosion\nexperts consider a light surface oxide to be protective to the metal\nsurface.”).8\nHaving considered Respondent’s arguments, it should be emphasized that under the regulations,\npipeline operators are not allowed to wait until significant pitting and metal loss has occurred\nbefore taking any action. After all, the purpose of the atmospheric corrosion regulations is to\nprevent any significant corrosion from occurring. At the same time, the regulations did not have\nto include an exemption for surface oxidation. They could have simply said that any indication\nthat atmospheric corrosion had begun to develop triggered the cleaning and coating requirement.\nMoreover, the regulations do not articulate how a light surface oxide is to be distinguished from\nmore advanced atmospheric corrosion such as where pitting has begun KM’s approach of lightly\n7 Pre-hearing submission, at 3.\n8 Id.\n\n\n\nhand sanding the oxidized areas to ensure they qualified as light oxidation does not appear to be\nimpermissible under the regulations.\nFinally, KM’s well qualified third-party expert determined that in this instance the presence of\npeeling paint did not equate to the presence of significant corrosion:\nThere’s no question that the paint is peeling on this [Compton Creek]\nspan, but truth be told, this span doesn’t even need a paint or a coating. It\nhas no measurable wall loss. It’s not in an environment that’s conducive to\nany type of accelerated atmospheric corrosion, and nothing has been found\nby either SFPP or PHMSA that would suggest that there is a condition that\nadversely affects the safe operation of that pipeline, and the same is true for\nwhat I looked at […] Colton Station.\nMr. Garrity also addressed PHMSA’s substantial and misplaced\nreliance on photographs, explaining that “corrosion is three-dimensional.\nSo when we’re looking at photographs…there needs to be a recognition that\nit’s very difficult to identify metal loss from a photograph unless there’s a\nsignificant cavity or reduction in the wall loss itself.” Further, Mr. Garrity\nclarified in his report and at the hearing that the mechanism of corrosion\nresulting in external metal loss beneath disbonded coating is not feasible:\nIt also important to note that under the observed peeling coating\nconditions, the mechanism of corrosion resulting in external metal loss\nunder disbonded coatings is not feasible due to the absence of a capillary\npath between an anaerobic anodic condition under the coating and an\nadjacent oxygenated cathodic condition where the coating has peeled off.9\nOPS did not refute this information, but maintained its view that KM was “unable to demonstrate\nthat atmospheric corrosion did not exist” on the span crossing Compton Creek at the time of the\n2022 OPS inspection.10 However, it was OPS that had the burden of proving its allegation that\natmospheric corrosion that went beyond light surface oxidation was present on the discolored\nareas on the Compton Creek span at the time of its inspection. While OPS was of the opinion\nthat the photographs meant the level of surface oxidation did not qualify for the exemption, OPS\nnever made a persuasive evidentiary showing to that effect (such as by the use of a pit gauge by\nthe OPS inspector or evidence of an attempt at hand sanding that did not remove the surface\noxidation), nor did OPS make a showing that the darkness of the discoloration was dispositive in\nthis regard.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that OPS did not meet its burden of\nproving the specified allegation. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that the Notice be\nwithdrawn.\n9 Post-hearing submission, at 13.\n10 Recommendation, at 4.\n\n\n\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $81,500 for Respondent’s alleged violation of 49\nC.F.R. §195.583(c). Since the Notice has been withdrawn, the proposed penalty is not assessed.\nNovember 18, 2024\n_________________________________ ________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n52023003NOPV_PHC Hearing Rescheduled_02012024_(22-236099)_text.pdf\n\nDate: February 1, 2024\nFrom: Larry White\nTo: File\nRe: Continuance of Hearing, Kinder Morgan, LLC\nCPF No. 5-2023-003-NOPV\nBy electronic mail dated December 21, 2023, Kathleen Maitland, Counsel for OPS Western Region,\nand Annie Cook, Counsel for Kinder Morgan, LLC submitted a joint request for a continuance of\nthe hearing previously scheduled for January 18, 2024. The request explained that the parties were\nengaged in settlement discussions to resolve the case which would make a hearing unnecessary and\nthe additional time was needed to conclude the negotiations.\nI granted the request for a continuance until February 14, 2024 which will be the new hearing date if\nresolution by consent agreement is not completed by that time.\n\n52023003NOPV_PHC Hearing Scheduled_06222023_(22-236099)_text.pdf\n\nJune 23, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: annie.cook@bracewell.com and dustin.hubbard@dot.gov\nMs. Annie Cook, Esq.\nCounsel for Kinder Morgan, LLC\nBracewell, LLP\n2001 M Street NW, Suite 900\nWashington, DC 20036\nMr. Dustin Hubbard\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 110\nLakewood, CO 80228\nRe: Notice of Hearing, Kinder Morgan, LLC\nCPF No. 5-2023-003-NOPV\nDear Ms. Cook and Mr. Hubbard:\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.211, an informal hearing will be held regarding the Notice of\nProbable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order issued by the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in the above-referenced case. The hearing will take\nplace on January 18th, 2024, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Mountain Time.\nThe hearing will be held at the PHMSA Western Region office, 12300 W. Dakota Ave, Suite 110,\nLakewood, CO 80228. Upon arrival at the building, attendees will be required to present photo\nidentification to security personnel. A contact phone number for the day of the hearing is (720) 963-\n3160.\nAt least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing (or by January 8th, 2024), both parties must submit and\nexchange any additional written materials they intend to present at the hearing and the name and\nemail address of each attendee. This information should be provided electronically. Materials not\nsubmitted by this date may be excluded. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact\nme.\nSincerely,\nLarry White\nPresiding Official\n\n\n\ncc: Ms. Mary Clair Lyons, Assistant General Counsel, Kinder Morgan, Inc.\nmary_lyons@kindermorgan.com\nMs. Kathleen Maitland, Counsel, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA,\nkathleen.maitland@dot.gov","truncated":false,"body_characters":25472}