This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. U.S. Departmentof Transportation 
400 Seventh Street, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20590 
Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration 
OCT 2 7 2005 
Mr. Richard C. Kelly 
President 
Northern States Power Company 
4 14 Nicollet Mall 
Minneapolis, MN 5540 1 -1927 
Re: CPF No. 36301 
Dear Mr. Kelly: 
Enclosed is a decision on the petition for reconsideration filed in the above-referenced 
case. The Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety has denied the petition. Accordingly, 
payment of the $3,000 civil penalty is due immediately. In addition, please be advised that 
appropriate corrective action regarding the Warning Item specified in the Final Order must 
also be taken if such action has not already been completed. Your receipt of this decision 
constitutes service under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.5. 
Sincerely, 
J&es Reynolds 
Pipeline Compliance Registry 
Office of Pipeline Safety 
Enclosure 
CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY 
WASHINGTON, DC 20590 
In the Matter of 
1 
Northern States Power Company, 1 CPF No. 36301 
1 
Petitioner ) 
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
On September 20, 2004, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.S. 8 601 12 (2004), the Associate Administrator 
for Pipeline Safety ("Associate Administrator") issued a Final Order in this case finding that 
Petitioner had violated the pipeline safety regulations and assessing a civil penalty in the amount 
of $3,000. The Final Order also warned Petitioner to take appropriate corrective action regarding 
certain inspection and testing requirements. 
On October 15, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration of the Final Order. 
Approximately three months after the filing of this petition, and before the decision on it was 
issued, Petitioner received a Delinquency Notice regarding the unpaid $3,000 debt. On February 
10, 2005, Petitioner wrote a response letter to the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) requesting that 
the Delinquency Notice and Final Order be vacated.' 
In its petition for reconsideration, Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Final Order on the 
grounds that the delay between the issuance of the Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) on 
January 30, 1996 and the issuance of the Final Order on September 20, 2004 was unreasonable 
and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 5 6, 5 U.S.C.S. 8 555 (1989) and 49 
C.F.R. 5 190.2 13(e) (2003). Petitioner contended that the civil penalty assessed for Petitioner's 
violation of 49 C.F.R. 8 193.2621(a) should therefore be vacated. 
The Final Order found Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. 5 193.2621(a) by failing to test its ethylene 
refrigerant system hoses. Section 193.262 1 (a) requires that these transfer hoses be tested "once 
each year but with intervals not exceeding 15 months, to the maximum pump pressure or relief 
' Please be advised that the Delinquency Notice was sent inadvertently and may be disregarded. Pursuant 
to 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(d), "[tlhe filing of a petition . . . stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed." 
Therefore, Petitioner is not responsible for the interest and finance charges of $77.58 assessed in the 
Delinquency Notice. 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. valve setting." According to the NOPV, Petitioner had "never tested the ethylene refrigerant 
system hoses." NOPV at 2. In its petition for reconsideration, Petitioner admitted that ". . . NSP 
did not contest the NOPV in February 1996 and requested only a reduction in the civil penalty." 
Petition at 3. The Final Order did reduce the civil penalty that had been proposed in the NOPV 
from $5,000 to $3,000 based on the information concerning the corrective actions taken by 
Petitioner it provided in response to the NOPV. Nonetheless, Petitioner now argues that the time 
which has elapsed between the issuance of the NOPV and the issuance of the Final Order 
constitutes unreasonable delay and should be grounds for complete rescission of the Final Order 
and civil penalty. 
In its petition, Petitioner advanced two arguments for setting aside the Final Order and civil 
penalty. First, Petitioner argued that the delay between the issuance of the NOPV and the 
issuance of the Final Order violated 5 U.S.C. § 555. Petitioner specifically quotes this section of 
the APA for the proposition that this delay was excessive and unreasonable. Subsection (b) 
states, in part, that "[wlith due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their 
representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter 
presented to it." Likewise, the applicable provision from subsection (e) reads, "Prompt notice 
shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written application, petition, or other request 
of an interested person made in connection with an agency proceeding." Petitioner also cites two 
federal cases in which courts held that delays of five years or more in adjudicating 
unemployment claims and computing amount of back pay owed to NLRB employees 
respectively were unreasonable under the APA. 
We acknowledge that an extended period of time elapsed between the issuance of the NOPV and 
the issuance of the Final Order on September 20, 2004. Petitioner, however, failed to explain 
how the delay could have prejudiced its rights in this proceeding in any way. Petitioner's 
response to the NOPV consisted entirely of its letter dated February 29, 1996. Petitioner did not 
request leave to submit additional materials and did not request a hearing. Therefore, the record 
used by the Associate Administrator in making the decision reflected in the Final Order was 
closed as of February 29, 1996, 30 days after the NOPV was issued. Therefore, the delay in 
issuance of the Final Order, while uncharacteristic, did not prejudice Petitioner's ability to 
respond to the NOPV. 
We further note that the remedy for a party that claims to have been aggrieved by an 
administrative delay in violation of the APA is not vacation of the proceeding. Rather, the 
aggrieved party may request a writ of mandamus to compel the agency to act in compliance with 
governing statutes or regulations.3 A At of mandamus is considered an "extraordinary" and 
Air Line Pilots Ass'n, intyl v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 750 F.2d 8 i (D.C. Cir. 1984); Siiverman v. NiM, 
543 F.2d 428 (2d Cir. 1975). 
28 U.S.C.S. 3 1361 (2003). 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. "drastic" remedy.' In a mandamus action, a court would likely require that Petitioner 
demonstrate that agency delay was egregious and that it actually prejudiced the petitioner.' In 
this case, Petitioner not only never requested a writ of mandamus, it never contacted OPS to 
express any concern that it would be prejudiced if the Final Order were further delayed. 
Moreover, unlike the two cases Petitioner cited to support its argument regarding unreasonable 
delay under the APA, this proceeding was initiated as a result of noncompliance by Petitioner, 
for which liability was never contested. In the two cases Petitioner cited in its petition, however, 
aggrieved parties were objecting to an agency's inaction regarding monetary beneJits that they 
claimed were owed to them respectively. On the contrary, in the present proceeding, Petitioner 
owes money for violating the pipeline safety regulations. Therefore, Petitioner's reliance on 
these cases is unfounded. 
Petitioner also contended that the delay between the issuance of the NOPV and the issuance of 
the Final Order in this proceeding without proper notice was inconsistent with the Part 190 
adjudication procedures used by OPS. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that this delay violated 49 
C.F.R. 9 190.213(e), which reflects OPS' policy to issue Final Orders within 45 days whenever 
practicable. Again, Petitioner never contested the merits of the investigation or the conclusion 
of OPS that Petitioner violated the pipeline safety regulations. While this regulation reflects 
OPS' own administrative practices, exceeding the period does not operate as a bar to OPS 
issuing a Final Order in furtherance of its pipeline safety mission. 
Relief Denied 
I have considered Petitioner's request for reconsideration. I do not find Petitioner's arguments 
warrant withdrawal of the findings of violation or a vacation of the civil penalty assessed in the 
Final Order. Therefore, all terms of the Final Order remain in effect, including assessment of the 
civil penalty in the amount of $3,000. 
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 
C.F.R. 9 89.21(b)(3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal 
See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394 (1976); In re United Mine 
Workers of American International Union, 190 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 
5 See Panhandle Co-op. Ass'n, Bridgeport, Neb. v. EPA, 771 F.2d 1149 (8th Cir. 1985) (refusing to 
reverse assessment of penalty against petitioner for mislabeling pesticide tank despite a two and one-half 
years delay between the issuance of the final brief and the issuance of the final order because, among 
other reasons, petitioner did not demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the delay); see also Pub. Citizen v. 
Heckler, 602 F. Supp. 61 1 (D. D.C. 1985) (opining that when deciding whether agency action has been 
delayed unlawfully or unreasonably, courts should consider prejudice, agency justification for delay, and 
statutory context and scheme). Butsee Muwehia Tribe v. Sabbitt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D. D.C. 2C00) 
(granting Indian tribe's request for writ of mandamus to compel Bureau of Indian Affairs to resolve 
pending petition partly because of the fact that the Indian tribe's members' health and welfare was 
threatened by the delay). 

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. 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 73 125; (405) 954-47 19. 
Failure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in 
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9 3717, 31 C.F.R. 5 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. 9 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. 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. 
This decision on reconsideration is the final administration action in this proceeding. 
OCT 2 7 2005 
Date Issued 
k P\~ssbibiate Administrator 
for Pipeline Safety