{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 52024011NOPV","title":"DCOR, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2024-02-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN notice of probable violation citing 195.403(b), 195.404(b), 195.404(c)(3), 195.410(c), 195.440(i), 195.452(l)(1)(ii), 195.575(a), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52024011nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52024011nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-52024011nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/52024011NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving DCOR, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.403(b),  195.404(b),  195.404(c)(3),  195.410(c),  195.440(i),  195.452(l)(1)(ii),  195.575(a),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2024-02-23 and is reported as open. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n52024011NOPV_Final Order_10152025_(23-264348).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52024011NOPV/52024011NOPV_Final%20Order_10152025_(23-264348).pdf\n\n52024011NOPV_Final Order_10152025_(23-264348)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52024011NOPV/52024011NOPV_Final%20Order_10152025_(23-264348)_text.pdf\n\n52024011NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_03212024_(23-264348).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52024011NOPV/52024011NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03212024_(23-264348).pdf\n\n52024011NOPV_PCO_02232024_(23-264348).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52024011NOPV/52024011NOPV_PCO_02232024_(23-264348).pdf\n\n52024011NOPV_PCO_02232024_(23-264348)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/52024011NOPV/52024011NOPV_PCO_02232024_(23-264348)_text.pdf\n\n52024011NOPV_Final Order_10152025_(23-264348)_text.pdf\n\nOctober 15, 2025\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: sknight@dcorllc.com\nMr. Scott Knight\nVice President, Operations\nDCOR, LLC\n1000 Town Center, Suite 600\nOxnard, CA 93036\nRe: CPF No. 5-2024-011-NOPV\nDear Mr. Knight:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of the\nallegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, and specifies actions that need to be\ntaken by DCOR, LLC to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the\ncompliance order have been completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this\nenforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date\nof transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nDave Willis, Pipeline Integrity Manager, DCOR, LLC, dwillis@dcorllc.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 )\nDCOR, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2024-011-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 1 through August 3, 2023, 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 DCOR,\nLLC’s (DCOR or Respondent) Platform A-to-Rincon crude oil pipeline in Ventura, California.\nDCOR operates crude oil and natural gas pipelines in Southern California, the Ventura Basin,\nand the Los Angeles Basin.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated February 23, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding\nthat DCOR committed eight violations of 49 CFR Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nDCOR responded to the Notice by letter dated March 21, 2024 (Response). DCOR contested\nseveral of the allegations and offered additional information in response to the Notice.\nRespondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.403(b)(1), which states:\n§ 195.403 Emergency response training.\n(a)…\n(b) At the intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each\ncalendar year, each operator shall:\n\n\n\n(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives\nof the emergency response training program set forth in paragraph (a) of\nthis section; and\n(2) Make appropriate changes to the emergency response training\nprogram as necessary to ensure that it is effective.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.403(b)(1) by failing to review with\npersonnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the emergency response training\nprogram at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that at the time of PHMSA’s inspection, DCOR was unable to produce any\nrecords that demonstrated that the reviews had taken place.\nIn its Response, DCOR contested Item 1, explaining that it conducts routine operator\nqualification (OQ) training and provides other emergency response training covering topics such\nas fire extinguisher training, H2S, HAZWOPR, explosive and hazardous chemicals, abnormal\noperating conditions (AOCs), and Hazard Communication. DCOR also stated that it is in the\nprocess of building additional pipeline-specific emergency response training to include in the\nPetroSkills OQ program. DCOR stated the relevant records were attached to the Response as\nAttachment 1(a).\nHaving considered the Response, I find the evidence supports finding a violation. DCOR failed\nto provide any records demonstrating that it had reviewed with personnel their performance in\nmeeting the objectives of the emergency response training program, as required by section\n195.403(b)(1). While DCOR presented information about emergency response training in\nAttachment 1(a), the Notice alleged DCOR failed to review with personnel their performance.\nDCOR did not present any information regarding annual review of personnel performance in\nmeeting the objectives of the training program.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.403(b)(1) by failing to review with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives\nof the emergency response training program at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least\nonce each calendar year.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.404(b), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a)…\n(b) Each operator shall maintain for at least 3 years daily operating\nrecords that indicate –\n(1) The discharge pressure at each pump station; and\n(2) Any emergency or abnormal operation to which the procedures\nunder § 195.402 apply.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.404(b) by failing to maintain for at\nleast 3 years daily operating records that indicate the discharge pressure at each pump station and\nany abnormal operation to which the procedures under section 195.402(d) apply.\n\n\n\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the PHMSA inspection, DCOR was unable to\nprovide any of these daily operating records.\nIn its Response, DCOR contested Item 2. DCOR explained in its Response that it monitors\npipeline pressures through SCADA and the LDS and noted that inspectors observed pipeline\npressures at the onshore receiving facility in Rincon during the inspection. DCOR also stated that\nit maintained records of any AOCs in the operator’s daily logbook, which was discussed with\ninspectors at the time of inspection. DCOR acknowledged, however, that this process did not\nprovide an effective means to review past AOCs. Since the inspection, DCOR reported that it is\nin the process of implementing a dedicated AOC reporting form for use by all operators. DCOR\nstated records for pipeline pressures were included in the Response as Attachment 2(a).\nAfter reviewing DCOR’s Response, I find the evidence supports finding DCOR failed to comply\nwith sections 195.404(b)(1) and (2). DCOR asserted that it provided a dedicated AOC reporting\nform as Attachment 2(a), but upon review, PHMSA finds such a document was not included.1\nWithout documentation of daily records of operating pressure and abnormal operations, which\nDCOR is required to maintain, PHMSA finds DCOR in violation of section 195.404(b) as\nalleged.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.404(b) by failing to maintain daily operating records that indicate the discharge pressure at\neach pump station and any abnormal operation to which the procedures under section 195.402(d)\napply for at least 3 years.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.404(c)(3), which states:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a)…\n(c) Each operator shall maintain the following records for the periods\nspecified:\n(1)…\n(3) A record of each inspection and test required by this subpart shall be\nmaintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is\nperformed, whichever is longer.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a\nrecord of each inspection and test required by Subpart F of Part 195 for at least 2 years or until\nthe next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer. Specifically, the Notice alleged that\nat the time of the PHMSA inspection, DCOR was unable to provide any records demonstrating\nthat it had inspected valve PSV ROSF-117 at least twice each calendar year, but at intervals not\nexceeding 7½ months in accordance with section 195.420(b).2\n1 In a recommendation for final action dated September 5, 2024, submitted pursuant to section 190.209(b)(7), the\nDirector identified that several records DCOR claimed were included in the Response (e.g., for Items 2, 6, and 8),\nwere in fact not included. The Director provided a copy of his recommendation to DCOR on September 5, 2024.\n2 Section 195.420(b) requires operators to inspect each mainline valve at least twice each calendar year, but at\nintervals not exceeding 7½ months.\n\n\n\nIn its Response, DCOR contested Item 3. DCOR stated in its Response that during the inspection\nit did not have access to the pressure safety valve (PSV) records, but those records have since\nbeen located. DCOR explained that ICS performed all PSV testing and was able to provide\ncopies of the PSV testing reports. DCOR included a copy of the inspection records for PSV\nROSF-117 with its Response as Attachment 3(a).\nAfter evaluating the Response submitted by Respondent, I find that the evidence supports finding\nDCOR failed to comply with section 195.404(c)(3). Upon review of Attachment 3(a), these\nrecords demonstrate only that the valve was inspected once per year from 2020 through 2022.\nThe valve was not inspected twice per calendar year, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, as\nrequired by section 195.420(b). DCOR’s records for calendar year 2023 are complete.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.404(c)(3) by failing to maintain a record of each inspection and test required by Subpart F\nfor at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.410(c), which states:\n§ 195.410 Line markers.\n(a)…\n(c) Each operator shall provide line marking at locations where the line\nis above ground in areas that are accessible to the public.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.410(c) by failing to provide line\nmarking at all locations where the line is above ground in areas that are accessible to the public.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that DCOR had a test station and casing vent in a publicly\naccessible area that did not have a line marker.\nIn its Response, DCOR did not contest Item 4. DCOR stated that it is verifying all pipeline\nmarker locations for compliance with section 195.410. DCOR did not provide any records\nrelated to Item 4.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR §\n195.410(c) by failing to provide line marking at all locations where the line is above ground in\nareas that are accessible to the public.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.440(i), which states:\n§ 195.440 Public Awareness.\n(a)…\n(i) The operator’s program documentation and evaluation results must\nbe available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.440(i) by failing to make its public\nawareness program documentation and evaluation results available for review by PHMSA.\n\n\n\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that at the time of the PHMSA inspection, DCOR was unable to\nprovide any records demonstrating it had completed an annual review of its public awareness\nprogram as required by API RP 1162 section 8.3 (incorporated by reference, see section 195.3).\nIn its Response, DCOR contested Item 5. DCOR stated that the public awareness program has\nbeen evaluated as required. Additionally, DCOR provided records of its public awareness\nprogram and yearly reports on the effectiveness of the program for calendar years 2020, 2021,\n2022, and 2023 as Attachment 4(a) to the Response.\nIn a recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to section 190.209(b)(7), the Director\nrecommended withdrawing the alleged violation of section 195.440(i). Accordingly, based upon\nthe foregoing, I hereby order that Item 5 be withdrawn.\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(l)(1)(ii), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) …\n(l) What records must an operator keep to demonstrate compliance?\n(1) An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline, records\nthat demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart. At a\nminimum, an operator must maintain the following records for review\nduring an inspection:\n(i) …\n(ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any\nmodifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made,\nvariances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the\nintegrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.452(l)(1)(ii) by failing to maintain\ndocuments to support the decisions and analyses, including any modifications, justifications,\ndeviations and determinations made, variances, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate\neach element of the integrity management program listed in section 195.452(f). Specifically, the\nNotice alleged two instances of this violation:\n(a) DCOR failed to provide records to demonstrate the implementation of a means to detect\nleaks on its pipeline system as required by sections 195.452(f)(6) and 195.452(i)(3); and\n(b) DCOR failed to provide records to demonstrate the methods used to measure the integrity\nmanagement program’s effectiveness as required by sections 195.452(f)(7) and\n195.452(k).\nIn its Response, DCOR contested Item 6. With respect to Item 6(a), in its Response, DCOR\nstated that during the inspection at the Rincon facility, inspectors reviewed and discussed the\nCPM leak detection system installed on the line. DCOR explained that the system consists of the\nEFA LeakNet CPM leak detection system and contended that it included with its Response a\npicture of the EFA LDS located on the console at the Rincon facility, as Attachment 5(a).\n\n\n\nAfter reviewing the additional materials provided with DCOR’s Response, I find the evidence in\nthe record supports finding that DCOR did not comply with section 195.452(l)(1)(ii). In\nparticular, while DCOR asserted that it had installed an EFA LeakNet CPM leak detection\nsystem on its pipeline to detect leaks and stated that it included documentation regarding this\nsystem as Attachment 5(a), upon review, these documents were not included in the Response.\nWithout any records to demonstrate the implementation of a means to detect leaks on its\npipeline, PHMSA finds DCOR in violation of section 195.452(l)(1)(ii) as alleged.\nWith respect to Item 6(b), in its Response, DCOR did not refute that it had not formally recorded\na review of the integrity management program (IMP) effectiveness. DCOR explained that it had\nrecently implemented an IMP review process, but that no records existed for prior years. DCOR\nstated it submitted with its Response a copy of the completed annual Program Review form.\nSince DCOR did not refute the allegation of violation in Item 6(b), PHMSA finds DCOR in\nviolation of section 195.452(l)(1)(ii) as alleged. PHMSA notes further that while DCOR stated it\nincluded a copy of a newly completed Program Review form, upon review, the referenced form\nwas not provided in the Response.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.452(l)(1)(ii) by failing to maintain documents to support the decisions and analyses,\nincluding any modifications, justifications, deviations and determinations made, variances, and\nactions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the integrity management program\nlisted in section 195.452(f).\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.575(a), which states:\n§ 195.575 Which facilities must I electrically isolate and what\ninspections, tests, and safeguards are required?\n(a) You must electrically isolate each buried or submerged pipeline from\nother metallic structures, unless you electrically interconnect and\ncathodically protect the pipeline and the other structures as a single unit.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.575(a) by failing to electrically\nisolate each buried or submerged pipeline from other metallic structures as required. Specifically,\nthe Notice alleged that PHMSA observed that the isolation installed between the pipeline and the\nRincon facility piping was not functioning properly, resulting in a resistive short.\nIn its Response, DCOR contested Item 7. DCOR explained that during the field inspection, the\nPHMSA inspector asked DCOR to verify the isolation of the pipeline-to-facility isolation flange.\nDCOR stated that its contractor, Far West Corrosion, used a multimeter to conduct a preliminary\non-site evaluation of the isolation. According to DCOR, the multimeter indicated that there was\npotential current flow across the flange, though the direction and current could not be obtained\nwithout the use of Far West’s Radio Frequency Insulation Tester. DCOR included with its\nResponse copies of the annual cathodic protection (CP) surveys.\n\n\n\nAfter reviewing the additional materials provided with DCOR’s Response, I find the evidence in\nthe record supports finding a violation as alleged. While records from Farwest Corrosion Control\nCompany reflect that there was no problem with the cathodic protection current isolation\nbetween the offshore side and the facility side during CP surveys performed in 2020 – 2023 prior\nto the PHMSA inspection in August 2023, PHMSA observed a resistive short during the\ninspection. Respondent acknowledged there was potential current flow across the flange\nobserved at that time. DCOR did not provide any records dated after the issue was observed to\nshow DCOR has remediated the issue.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.575(a) by failing to electrically isolate each buried or submerged pipeline from other\nmetallic structures as required.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.589(c), which states:\n§ 195.589 What corrosion control information do I have to maintain?\n(a)…\n(c) You must maintain a record of each analysis, check, demonstration,\nexamination, inspection, investigation, review, survey, and test required by\nthis subpart in sufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion\ncontrol measures or that corrosion requiring control measures does not\nexist. You must retain these records for at least 5 years, except that records\nrelated to §§ 195.569, 195.573(a) and (b), and 195.579(b)(3) and (c) must\nbe retained for as long as the pipeline remains in service.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a record\nof each inspection required by Subpart H of Part 195 in sufficient detail to demonstrate the\nadequacy of corrosion control measures. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCOR was unable\nto provide a copy of the atmospheric corrosion inspection records for the portion of the pipeline\non Platform A.3\nIn its Response, DCOR contested Item 8. DCOR stated the required atmospheric corrosion\nrecords were located on the platform and available, but the PHMSA inspector was unable to\ntravel to the platform. DCOR stated that it included as Attachment 7(a) documentation regarding\nthis Item.\nAfter reviewing the additional materials provided with DCOR’s Response, I find the evidence\nsupports finding DCOR failed to comply with section 195.589(c). While DCOR stated it had the\nrequired records and submitted them in the Response, upon review, the records were not\nprovided by DCOR. Without records of each inspection required, which DCOR is required to\nmaintain, PHMSA finds DCOR in violation of section 195.589(c) as alleged.\n3 Section 195.583 requires the inspection of each pipeline or portion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for\nevidence of atmospheric corrosion.\n\n\n\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.589(c) by failing to maintain a record of each inspection required by Subpart H in\nsufficient detail to demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the\nNotice for violations of 49 CFR §§ 195.403(b)(1), 195.404(b), 195.404(c)(3), 195.410(c),\n195.440(i), 195.452(l)(1)(ii), 195.575(a), and 195.589(c), 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. As discussed above, Item 5 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance\nterms proposed in the Notice for that Item are not included in this Order.\nWith regard to the violation of section 195.404(c)(3) (Item 3), the Director has indicated that\nDCOR satisfied the proposed compliance terms associated with Item 3. Therefore, Item 3 is not\nincluded in this Compliance Order.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered\nto take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable\nto its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of section 195.403(b)(1) (Item 1), Respondent must\nconduct and document a review of the emergency response training program\nwithin 90 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit this documentation to the\nDirector, Western Region.\n2. With respect to the violation of section 195.404(b) (Item 2), Respondent must\nprovide the daily operating records for the last three years as required by section\n195.404(b) within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit this\ndocumentation to the Director, Western Region.\n3. With respect to the violation of section 195.410(c) (Item 4), Respondent must\nplace a line marker at the test station and casing vent across the street from the\nRincon facility within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit\ndocumentation of this to the Director, Western Region.\n4. With respect to the violation of section 195.452(l)(1)(ii) (Item 6), Respondent\nmust document the methods used to demonstrate the integrity management\nprogram’s effectiveness as required by section 195.452(f)(7) within 90 days of\nreceipt of the Final Order and submit this documentation to the Director, Western\nRegion.\n5. With respect to the violation of section 195.575(a) (Item 7), Respondent must\n\n\n\nensure that the pipeline receiver and the facility pipe at Rincon are electrically\nisolated within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit documentation of\nthis to the Director, Western Region.\n6. With respect to the violation of section 195.589(c) (Item 8), Respondent must\nconduct an atmospheric corrosion inspection of the portion of the pipeline located\non Platform A within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order and submit this\ndocumentation to the Director, Western Region.\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.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nexceeding $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for\neach violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nUnder 49 CFR § 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. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The terms of the\norder, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in\naccordance with 49 CFR § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":26589}