Wolverine Pipe Line Co. v. DOT, PHMSA, 69 F.4th 365

PHMSA inspected Wolverine's hazardous-liquid pipeline records and issued a Notice of Probable Violation alleging two regulatory breaches under 49 C.F.R. § 195.452: an immediate-repair/pressure-reduction violation (Item 5) and missed 180-day repair deadlines (Item 6).
For Item 5: an ILI report identifying a topside dent with metal loss was emailed June 10, 2015; Wolverine’s risk specialist did not open the report until June 23, convened a meeting June 26, and completed the repair June 30 without temporarily reducing pressure or shutting down the line.
PHMSA’s enforcement alleged discovery began on June 10 and recommended a penalty because Wolverine did not document any temporary pressure reduction between June 10 and June 30.
For Item 6: an ILI report (June 12) listed both R‑STRENG and B31G remaining‑strength calculations; Wolverine used B31G to classify four anomalies as 180‑day conditions and prepared repair plans, but missed the 180‑day deadline at two locations.
At the agency hearing Wolverine argued (Item 5) discovery was June 26 and the quick repair obviated a pressure reduction, and (Item 6) reliance on R‑STRENG would have shown no 180‑day obligation; PHMSA found violations on both items and assessed a total penalty of $65,800.
The D.C. Circuit (panel: Nalbandian, Readler; Batchelder dissenting) reviewed under the APA and affirmed PHMSA’s Final Order, rejecting Wolverine’s arbitrary-and-capricious and due-process claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §195.452(h)(4)(i) requires an operator to reduce pressure or shut down pending repair, even if repair can be completed quickly	Wolverine: regulation should not require pressure reduction if operator can repair before a reduction could be effectuated; discovery here was June 26, repair June 30	PHMSA: text plainly mandates temporary pressure reduction or shutdown pending repair; longstanding agency interpretation applies regardless of repair speed or discovery date	Court: Affirmed PHMSA — regulation requires pressure reduction or shutdown; Wolverine violated it and due‑process/Chenery arguments fail
Whether PHMSA arbitrarily enforced 180‑day repair rules when R‑STRENG results (in ILI) would have obviated 180‑day classification	Wolverine: R‑STRENG values in the ILI report showed no 180‑day condition; operator may rely on R‑STRENG and use it as defense	PHMSA: operator documented and relied on B31G in its plans and provided no contemporaneous R‑STRENG calculations at inspection; agency may reject after‑the‑fact methods offered only at hearing	Court: Affirmed PHMSA — operator is bound by the methodology it documented and relied on during inspection; post hoc R‑STRENG analysis cannot defeat enforcement

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (sets deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard requiring reasoned explanation)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1943) (agency action must rest on grounds actually relied upon by the agency)
SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1947) (court may not supply post hoc rationalizations for agency decisions)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process notice principles for administrative proceedings)
Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Martin, 954 F.2d 353 (6th Cir. 1992) (agency may not change theories midstream without notice)
Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, 585 F.2d 1327 (6th Cir. 1978) (vagueness/fair‑notice doctrine in administrative enforcement)
ECM BioFilms, Inc. v. FTC, 851 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2017) (informal charging documents need not define ambiguous terms in exact detail to provide fair notice)
Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (U.S. 2004) (court may uphold agency action if the agency's path can reasonably be discerned)