Mr. John W. Gibson 
President 
Oneok, Inc./Norteno Pipeline Company 
Oneok Plaza 
100 W 5th St 
Tulsa, OK 74103 
Re: CPF No. 4-2005-1003 
Dear Mr. Gibson: 
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 
in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of 
$27,500. It further finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required 
to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty is paid, this 
enforcement action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service under 
49 C.F.R.  190.5. 
Sincerely, 
James Reynolds 
Pipeline Compliance Registry 
Office of Pipeline Safety 
Enclosure 
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL  RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY 
WASHINGTON, DC 20590 
_______________________________________ 
) 
In the Matter of ) 
) 
Norteno Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 4-2005-1003 
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Oneok, Inc., ) 
) 
Respondent ) 
_______________________________________) 
FINAL ORDER 
On July 810, 2003, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.  60117, a representative of the Office of Pipeline 
Safety (OPS), Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), conducted a pipeline 
safety inspection of Respondents facilities and records pertaining to the Del Norte pipeline 
systems in El Paso, Texas.1 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS, 
issued to Respondent, by letter dated February 14, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation, 
Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. 
 190.207, the Notice alleged Respondent committed violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and 
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $30,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also 
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. 
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Respondent responded to the 
Notice by letter dated March 31, 2005. Respondent contested several of the allegations and 
provided information concerning corrective action it had taken. Respondent did not request a 
hearing, and therefore has waived its right to one. 
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION 
Item 1B in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.  192.491(c) by failing to maintain 
a record of each test, survey, or inspection required by 49 C.F.R.  192.481 in sufficient detail to 
demonstrate the adequacy of atmospheric corrosion control measures. The Notice alleged that at 
the time of the inspection, Respondent was unable to provide documentation that Respondent 
examined exposed pipe for evidence of atmospheric corrosion. 
1 The Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-426, 
118 Stat. 2423 (2004), created the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and 
transferred the authority of RSPA exercised under chapter 601 of title 49, United States Code, to the 
Administrator of PHMSA. See also 70 Fed. Reg. 8299, 8301-8302 (2005). 

Section 192.491(c) requires Respondent to maintain a record of each test, survey, or inspection 
required by subpart I, including inspections required by  192.481, in sufficient detail to 
demonstrate the adequacy of corrosion control measures or that a corrosive condition does not 
exist. Section 192.481(a) requires Respondent to inspect each onshore pipeline or portion of 
pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once 
every 3 calendar years, with intervals not exceeding 39 months. In its response, Respondent 
stated that the Del Norte pipeline system does not have portions of pipeline that are exposed to 
the atmosphere.2 Respondent also submitted a sample of a pipeline safety inspection report for a 
specific location on the pipeline system (Canutillo WGI) to show that annual inspections for the 
Del Norte pipeline system since 2001 included inspections for atmospheric corrosion.3 
Although Respondent contended that the pipeline system does not have portions of exposed 
pipeline, Respondent submitted a letter to OPS dated August 20, 2003 that includes pictures of 
exposed portions of pipeline, such as above-ground regulator stations.4 Accordingly, under 
 192.481(a) and 192.491(c), Respondent must inspect each exposed locations at least once 
every 3 years for evidence of atmospheric corrosion and maintain a record of those inspections 
for at least 5 years. The documentation submitted by Respondent shows only that it had visually 
checked the paint conditions at the Canutillo WGI location between 2001 and 2005. The 
documentation does not demonstrate compliance with respect to the entire Del Norte pipeline 
system at the time of the OPS inspection. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 
 192.491(c) and 192.481 as alleged in the Notice. 
Item 2B in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.  192.609 by failing to have 
documentation to show that a class location study had been performed when an increase in 
population density indicated a change in class location. The Notice alleged that at the time of the 
inspection, Respondent was unable to provide documentation to show that Respondent had 
performed a class location study to determine, among other things, the present class location of 
the Del Norte pipeline system. The Notice noted that Respondents 2002 annual report showed 
six miles of pipeline in Class 2; but the OPS inspector observed that the system was more likely 
six miles of Class 3 and only one mile of either Class 1 or Class 2. 
Section 192.609 requires Respondent to perform a class location study whenever an increase in 
population density indicates a change in class location for a segment of the pipeline system. In 
its response, Respondent submitted documentation that the Del Norte pipeline system is 
approximately five miles of Class 3, approximately one-half mile of Class 2, and approximately 
one mile of Class 1. The documentation is dated March 1, 2005, and therefore, does not 
demonstrate compliance at the time of the OPS inspection on July 810, 2003. Accordingly, I 
find that Respondent violated  192.609 as alleged in the Notice. 
Item 2C in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.  192.615 by failing to have 
documentation to show that liaison had been established with appropriate fire, police, and other 
public officials. The Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection, Respondent had no record 
of contact with appropriate officials in New Mexico. 
2 Response, p.2. 
3 Response Attachment, Tab 1. 
4 OPS Gas Pipeline Safety Violation Report, Exhibit 1. 

Section 192.615 requires Respondent to establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, 
police, and other public officials to: learn the responsibility and resources of each government 
organization that may respond to a gas pipeline emergency; acquaint the officials with the 
operators ability in responding to a gas pipeline emergency; identify the types of gas pipeline 
emergencies of which the operator notifies the officials; and plan how the operator and officials 
can engage in mutual assistance to minimize hazards to life or property. 
In its response, Respondent submitted documentation of training and liaison that Respondent 
conducted with local Texas and New Mexico public safety officials. The training and liaison 
took place on June 17, 2004, approximately one year after the OPS inspection. Respondent has 
not demonstrated that it established liaison prior to the OPS inspection on July 810, 2003. I 
find that Respondent violated  192.615 as alleged in the Notice. 
Item 2D in the Notice alleged Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.  192.709 by failing to have 
documentation to show that the pipeline system had been patrolled in accordance with  192.705. 
The Notice alleged that at the time of the inspection, Respondent did not have a record of the 
patrolling history for the Del Norte #1 pipeline. 
Section 192.709 requires Respondent to maintain a record of each patrol, survey, inspection, and 
test required by subparts L and M, including patrols required under  192.705, for at least 5 years 
or until the next patrol, survey, inspection, or test is completed, whichever is longer. Section 
192.705 requires Respondent to perform patrols to observe surface conditions on and adjacent to 
the transmission line right-of-way for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors 
affecting safety and operation. Patrols are to be performed at least annually, if not more often 
pursuant to  192.705(b). 
In its response, Respondent submitted patrol records for the Del Norte #1 pipeline for 2002 
through 2004. Respondent stated that these documents existed at the time of the inspection, but 
were maintained within other company records. Respondent explained that it will maintain 
patrol records separate from other company records in the future. Although Respondents 
documentation demonstrates that the Del Norte #1 pipeline was patrolled in 2002, 2003 and 
2004, Respondent did not submitted records of patrols prior to 2002. In accordance with 
 192.709, Respondent must be able to produce records of patrols for at least five years prior to 
the OPS inspection (July 1998). Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated  192.709 and 
192.705 by failing to maintain for at least 5 years a record of each patrol conducted on the Del 
Norte #1 pipeline in 1998 through 2001. 
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY 
Under 49 U.S.C.  60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per 
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of 
violations. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $30,000 for the violations. 
49 U.S.C.  60122 and 49 C.F.R.  190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil 
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation, 

degree of Respondents culpability, history of Respondents prior offenses, Respondents ability 
to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on 
Respondents ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. 
Item 1B in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violating 49 C.F.R.  192.491(c) 
and 192.481. Failure to inspect exposed pipelines for evidence of atmospheric corrosion may 
lead to corrosive conditions on the pipeline and pipeline failure. Keeping adequate records 
allows Respondent to review historical conditions on the pipeline and past practices and 
procedures. Respondent has not submitted information that would warrant a reduction in the 
civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the 
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000 for 
the violation of  192.491(c) and 192.481. 
Item 2B in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for violating 49 C.F.R.  192.609. 
Class 3 and Class 4 areas are more densely populated and include places where residences, 
multistoried buildings, places of public assembly and playgrounds may be prevalent. As such, 
many pipeline safety regulations are more stringent in those areas. Failure to perform a class 
location study when an increase in population density indicates a change in class location 
jeopardizes public safety. Subsequent to the OPS inspection, Respondent achieved compliance 
with respect to this violation. That action alone, however, does not justify reducing the civil 
penalty for the violation because Respondent is under an affirmative duty to achieve compliance. 
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess 
Respondent a civil penalty of $10,000 for the violation. 
Item 2C in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for violating 49 C.F.R.  192.615. 
Subsequent to the OPS inspection, Respondent achieved compliance with respect to this 
violation. That action alone, however, does not justify reducing the civil penalty for the violation 
because Respondent is under an affirmative duty to achieve compliance. Respondent has not 
submitted information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the 
Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the 
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $5,000 for the violation. 
Item 2D in the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,000 for violating 49 C.F.R.  192.709 
and 192.705 by failing to maintain for at least 5 years a record of each patrol conducted on the 
Del Norte #1 pipeline. Failure to perform right-of-way patrols on a regular basis may result in a 
hazardous or potentially unsafe condition going undetected, such as a pipeline leak or 
construction activity in the vicinity of the pipeline. In its response, Respondent submitted patrol 
records for the Del Norte #1 pipeline for the time period from 2002 through 2004. Although 
Respondent could not demonstrate full compliance with  192.709 and 192.705, Respondents 
ability to demonstrate compliance with several years in question justifies a proportional 
reduction to the civil penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the 
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $7,500 for the violation. 
Having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a total 
civil penalty of $27,500. I find Respondent has the ability to pay this penalty without adversely 
affecting its ability to continue in business. 

Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 
C.F.R.  89.21(b)(3)) require this payment 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 (AMZ-120), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike 
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-4719. 
Failure to pay the $27,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate 
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 United 
States District Court. 
COMPLIANCE ORDER 
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2B, 2C, and 2D. Under 49 U.S.C. 
 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a 
pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under 
Chapter 601. The Director, Southwest Region, OPS, has reviewed the corrective action taken by 
Respondent and has indicated that the corrective action has achieved compliance with respect to 
those violations. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved, it is not necessary to include 
the compliance terms in this order. 
WARNING ITEMS 
The Notice did not propose a civil penalty or corrective action for Item 1A, failing to examine 
exposed pipe, and Item 2A, failing to keep records of abnormal operations. Therefore, these are 
considered warning items. Respondent is warned that if it does not take appropriate action to 
correct these items, enforcement action will be taken if a subsequent inspection reveals a 
violation. 
Under 49 C.F.R.  190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of 
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondents receipt of this 
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition 
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However if Respondent submits 
payment for the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative action and the 
right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are 
effective on receipt. 
___________________________________ __________________ 
Stacey Gerard Date Issued 
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety