# TALLGRASS INTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 320201008  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2020-10-26

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.631(c)(3), 192.631(d)(2), 192.631(d)(3), 192.631(e)(2), 192.631(j)(1).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving TALLGRASS INTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.631(c)(3),  192.631(d)(2),  192.631(d)(3),  192.631(e)(2),  192.631(j)(1). The case was opened on 2020-10-26 and is reported as closed as of 2021-07-19. Proposed civil penalty: $86,700. Assessed civil penalty: $66,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320201008_Final Order_07022021_(18-159646S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_Final%20Order_07022021_(18-159646S).pdf

320201008_Final Order_07022021_(18-159646S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_Final%20Order_07022021_(18-159646S)_text.pdf

320201008_NOPV PCP_10262020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_NOPV%20PCP_10262020.pdf

320201008_NOPV PCP_10262020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_NOPV%20PCP_10262020_text.pdf

320201008_Operator Response to Notice_12112020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12112020.pdf

320201008_Final Order_07022021_(18-159646S)_text.pdf

July 2, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: bill.moler@tallgrassenergylp.com
Mr. William Moler
Chief Executive Officer
Tallgrass Energy, LP
4200 W. 115th St., Suite 350
Leawood, Kansas 66211
Re: CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Dear Mr. Moler:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a reduced civil penalty of $66,500. The penalty payment terms are set
forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment.
Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Gregory Ochs, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Ms. Crystal Heter, Chief Operating Officer, Tallgrass Energy, LP,
crystal.heter@tallgrassenergylp.com
Mr. Craig Meis, Vice President – EHSS & Governmental Affairs, Tallgrass Energy, LP,
craig.meis@tallgrassenergylp.com
CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP, ) CPF No. 3-2020-1008
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From May 7 through 11, 2018, and December 4 through 6, 2018, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117,
representatives of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and
records of Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP (Tallgrass or Respondent) in Lakewood, Colorado and
virtually. Tallgrass owns and operates more than 8,300 miles of natural gas pipeline and more
than 850 miles of crude pipeline, as well as natural gas midstream and natural gas liquids
facilities, across Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri,
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.1 This inspection included review of three natural gas pipeline
systems owned and operated by Tallgrass, including the Rockies Express Pipeline, Tallgrass
Interstate Gas Transmission, and Trailblazer Pipeline systems.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated October 26, 2020, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty
(Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Tallgrass
committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of
$86,700 for the alleged violations.
Tallgrass submitted a timely response to the Notice by letter dated December 11, 2020
(Response).2 Respondent contested one of the allegations of violation, provided an explanation
of its actions and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated for all of the
items. Respondent also submitted a supplemental response on April 1, 2021. Respondent did
not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
1 https://www.tallgrassenergy.com/About.aspx;
https://www.tallgrassenergy.com/Documents/Tallgrass%20System%20Map_11x17_v518L.pdf (last accessed April
22, 2021).
2 On November 24, 2020, PHMSA granted Tallgrass a 15-day extension to respond to the Notice.



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(c)(3), which states:
§ 192.631 Control room management.
(a) General. (1) This section applies to each operator of a pipeline
facility with a controller working in a control room who monitors and
controls all or part of a pipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each
operator must have and follow written control room management
procedures that implement the requirements of this section …
(c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its
controllers with the information, tools, processes and procedures necessary
for the controllers to carry out the roles and responsibilities the operator has
defined by performing each of the following:
(1) …
(3) Test and verify an internal communication plan to provide adequate
means for manual operation of the pipeline safely, at least once each
calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(c)(3) by failing to test and
verify an internal communication plan to provide adequate means for manual operation of the
pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that Respondent did not test and verify its internal
communication plan during the calendar year 2017.
In its Response, Tallgrass did not contest this allegation of violation, but did request that
PHMSA reduce the proposed civil penalty for this item.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(c)(3). Respondent’s
arguments regarding the proposed civil penalty are addressed in full in the “Assessment of
Penalty” section below.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(d)(2) and (3), which
states:
§ 192.631 Control room management.
(a) …
(d) Fatigue mitigation. Each operator must implement the following
methods to reduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that could
inhibit a controller's ability to carry out the roles and responsibilities the
operator has defined:
(1) …
(2) Educate controllers and supervisors in fatigue mitigation strategies
and how off-duty activities contribute to fatigue;



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 3
(3) Train controllers and supervisors to recognize the effects of fatigue;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(d)(2) and (3) by failing to
educate controllers and supervisors in fatigue mitigation strategies and how off-duty activities
contribute to fatigue and by failing to train controllers and supervisors to recognize the effects of
fatigue. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the Tallgrass Control Room Management (CRM)
Procedures required fatigue mitigation training to occur annually, but not to exceed 15 months.
The Notice alleged Respondent did not follow those procedures and provide training to educate
three controllers in the calendar year 2017, more than 15 months after the last fatigue mitigation
training the controllers received.
In its Response, Tallgrass provided additional evidence not presented during the inspection
showing two of the three controllers did receive training within the required 15-month interval.
Tallgrass did not contest the allegation of violation regarding the third controller, admitting the
controller completed the training three months after the 15-month interval.3 Tallgrass also
requested that the penalty be reduced for this item.
After considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(d)(2)
and (3) by failing to educate one controller in fatigue mitigation strategies and how off-duty
activities contribute to fatigue, but withdraw the allegation with respect to two additional
controllers. Respondent’s arguments regarding the proposed civil penalty are addressed in full in
the “Assessment of Penalty” section below.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(e)(2), which states:
§ 192.631 Control room management.
(a) …
(e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must
have a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller
response to alarms. An operator's plan must include provisions to:
(1) …
(2) Identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety
that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited,
generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods
of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating
activities;
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(e)(2) by failing to have and
follow a plan that includes provisions to identify at least once each calendar month points
affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited,
generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding
that required for associated maintenance or operating activities. Specifically, the Notice stated
Respondent’s CRM Procedures required monthly reviews of false alarms, but the monthly
reviews only included a review of the highest volume alarms without identifying “all the false
3 Tallgrass Energy, LP’s Response to Notice (December 11, 2020), at 4.



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 4
alarms that could be occurring on the pipeline system and affecting safety.”4 The Notice noted
the monthly alarm reviews showed Tallgrass categorized alarms as “actual” or “faulty,” but did
not categorize any as “false.”5
In its Response and its Rebuttal to the Region Recommendation, Tallgrass contests the violation
and the associated proposed civil penalty assessment. Tallgrass argues its separate Alarm
Management Plan is in compliance with § 192.631(e)(2) because its Plan requires a monthly
review of the alarm system, which includes an evaluation of all monthly alarms, in addition to
the top repeating alarms.6 Tallgrass argues this process meets the text of the code as well as the
purpose of the regulation. Tallgrass explains that it does not “draw distinctions in its monthly
alarm reports between actual and false alarms” because there is no definition of a “false alarm”
in the regulations nor is there a consensus approach or definition used across the industry.7
Tallgrass further argues its Alarm Management Plan is not in violation of the regulation because
the regulation requires monthly identification of points affecting safety that generated false
alarms, and does not require operators to determine whether every alarm is “false.” Tallgrass
clarified in its Response that the “faulty” designation for some alarms in its monthly reports is an
indication of devices that have been commissioned, but not activated, and is not a tag that is
synonymous with “false.”8 Finally, Tallgrass argues that if PHMSA interprets § 192.631(e)(2) to
require that every alarm must be reviewed on a monthly basis to determine it is false, it did not
have fair notice of that interpretation.
After reviewing all of the arguments and evidence presented, it is clear Respondent did not
adhere to its own CRM Procedures for evaluating points affecting safety that generated false
alarms. Tallgrass’ CRM Procedures state, “[t]he alarm system will be reviewed monthly by the
Manager and his/her designee to identify and address safety-related points that have been taken
off-scan, have manual values or have had false alarms.”9 In its Response, Tallgrass admits it
does not “draw distinctions in its monthly alarm reports between actual and false alarms.”10
Without any indication of which alarms are false, Tallgrass personnel would be unable to use the
monthly alarm reports to identify and address points affecting safety that generated false alarms
during the monthly reviews, as required by the CRM Procedures.
Rather than following its CRM Procedures, it appears Tallgrass follows its Alarm Management
Plan, a separate plan that also addresses monthly reviews of alarms. This Plan, however, does
not include a process for identifying points affecting safety that generated false alarms. Section
4 Notice, at 3.
5 Id.
6 Response, at 9-10.
7 Id., at 9.
8 Id., at 10.
9 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (on file with PHMSA), at 54.
10 Response, at 9.



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 5
8 of the Plan, Alarm System Review, states that the monthly alarm “review currently consists of
an excel report which draws data from SCADA reports. The SCADA reports are uploaded into a
folder on SharePoint each month and the alarm reports are linked to display the data from these
reports.”11 This section states “the categories that are included in the review” are: point-to-
point, current configuration error, out-of-service, all monthly alarms, alarm limit changes, user
disabled, bypassed, and top alarms.12 Tallgrass confirms in its Response that alarms falling into
these eight categories are organized into tabs on an excel spreadsheet, which are analyzed during
the monthly reviews.13 Section 192.631(b)(2) requires operator's plans to include provisions to
identify points affecting safety that have generated false alarms at least once each calendar
month, however, provisions directing personnel to identify points affecting safety that have
generated any false alarms are demonstrably absent from Tallgrass’ Alarm Management Plan. In
fact, the Plan does not include provisions for the identification of points affecting safety that
generated any alarms during its monthly reviews. Finally, the reports analyzed by Tallgrass
personnel on a monthly basis do not include identification of points affecting safety or false
alarms, so personnel would be unable to determine if any points affecting safety generated a false
alarm when conducting its review of these reports.
Accordingly, the evidence shows that Respondent failed to follow its own CRM Procedures for
conducting monthly alarm reviews, including the identification of points affecting safety that
generated false alarms. Further, the evidence shows Respondent’s alternative Alarm
Management Plan does not include provisions to identify points affecting safety at all, including
those that have generated false alarms.
Respondent makes several arguments that are not persuasive. First, Respondent states it is not
required to designate alarms as “false” in its monthly reports because the regulations do not
prescribe a method for identifying “false” alarms. Section 192.631(e)(2) requires each operator
to have and follow a written alarm management plan that includes provisions to, among other
things, identify points affecting safety that have generated false alarms. The allegation of
violation here is not related to Tallgrass’ methodology for identifying “false” alarms. Rather, the
allegation is that Tallgrass failed to identify points affecting safety that generated false alarms in
accordance with its own CRM Procedures. Further, Tallgrass already determined a methodology
for identifying alarms as “false.” Section 6 of the Plan, titled, Alarm System Performance,
includes a subsection titled, False or Malfunctioning Alarms. This section states:
A false or malfunctioning alarm is any alarm that is presented to the Controller that does
not accurately reflect the actual operational parameter or condition, or an alarm that can
mislead a Controller to believe a condition exists, but does not exist… All false or
malfunctioning alarms that are not generated during testing or scheduled maintenance are
reported to the [Operations Control Center] management team via the SharePoint log by
selecting the “alarm malfunction” category. Alarm malfunctions reported to the
11 Id., at 39.
12 Id., at 39-40.
13 Id., at 9-10.



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 6
[Operations Control Center] management will be handled and corrected as soon as
possible.
Further, section 9 of the Alarm Management Plan, Roles and Responsibilities, states that
controllers must, “[p]rovide feedback as to validity of alarms ([l]og entry),” including “reporting
false alarms, inaccurate alarms, [m]alfunctioning or problem alarms.”14
Based on Tallgrass’ Alarm Management Plan, Tallgrass requires controllers to analyze the
validity of alarms and document any “false,” “malfunctioning,” “inaccurate,” and “problem”
alarms that are identified. Specifically, the Plan requires that controllers report all “false” or
“malfunctioning” alarms not generated during testing or maintenance activities to management
via a SharePoint site log under an “alarm malfunction” designation. The monthly review process
of alarms that is included in the Alarm Management Plan, however, does not require a review of
this data on a monthly basis. As explained above, the Plan states that monthly reviews include
analysis of the point-to-point, current configuration error, out-of-service, all monthly alarms,
alarm limit changes, user disabled, bypassed, and top alarms categories, but it does not include a
category for “false” or “malfunctioning” alarms. Tallgrass admits it “doesn’t draw distinctions
in its monthly alarm reports between actual and false alarms,” despite controllers documenting
false alarms as they are identified.15 It is clear from the evidence that Tallgrass’ current process
fails to include identification of points affecting safety that generated false alarms in accordance
with its CRM Procedures despite its own prescribed methodology for identifying false alarms.
The fact that the operator defined which alarms would be designated as false rather than the
definition being prescribed in the regulations had no bearing on Respondent’s failure to follow
its own CRM Procedures.
Next, Respondent argues that § 192.631(e)(2) does not require any “review” or “analysis” of the
false alarms, only that the points affecting safety that generated false alarms are “identified.”
This argument is inconsequential because Respondent failed to identify at least once each
calendar month points affecting safety that have generated false alarms. Tallgrass’ CRM
Procedures further require personnel to conduct monthly “reviews” of their alarm system. The
Procedures state, “[t]he alarm system will be reviewed monthly by the Manager and his/her
designee to identify and address safety-related points that have been taken off-scan, have manual
values or have had false alarms” (emphasis added).16 The allegation in the Notice is that
Tallgrass failed to follow its own CRM Procedures, which require the review of alarms to
determine or identify if any points affecting safety are generating such alarms. Further, the
process Tallgrass describes in its Response does not actually include identification of points that
affect safety that generated any alarms, in violation of § 192.631(e)(2). Again, the Respondent
failed to follow its own Procedures, because it neither “reviewed” its alarm system nor
“identified and addressed” certain safety-related points as required.
14 Id., at 42.
15 Id., at 9.
16 Violation Report, at 54.



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 7
Tallgrass next argues that the regulations do not require that all alarms be designated as “false”
or “actual,” and that if PHMSA interprets § 192.631(e)(2) to include such a requirement,
Tallgrass lacked fair notice of that interpretation. That question is not at issue here because
Tallgrass admits it did not analyze any false alarms during its monthly review process.17 The
regulation as well as Respondent’s own CRM Procedures, however, clearly require at least some
analysis of false alarms so that any points affecting safety that generated those alarms could be
identified. As explained above, spreadsheets included in the Violation Report and with the
Response show several categories of alarms are evaluated by Tallgrass personnel during monthly
reviews, however, the spreadsheets do not include “false,” or “malfunctioning” alarms. Without
any indication of which alarms may be “false,” Respondent would not be able to identify points
affecting safety that generated those alarms, as required by the § 192.631(e)(2) or the CRM
Procedures. Further, there is no identification of points affecting safety related to any of the
alarms reviewed by Tallgrass, meaning it would be impossible for personnel to identify any
points affecting safety that generated any alarms. As described in detail above, it is clear from
the evidence, including Respondent’s own admissions, that it does not follow its own CRM
Procedures in conducting monthly alarm reviews by failing to review the information necessary
to “identify and address safety related points that … had false alarms.”18
Finally, Tallgrass states that by reviewing all alarms every month it is reviewing false alarms,
practically speaking. I do not find this argument persuasive. The regulation requires focused
attention to the points affecting safety that generated false alarms, so a review of all alarms
without any way of identifying which are false would render it impossible to then identify a point
affecting safety that generated the specific type of alarm pinpointed by § 192.631(e)(2), a false
alarm. Moreover, the evidence in the record does not show that Respondent’s review of all
alarms resulted in the appropriate monthly identification of points affecting safety that generated
false alarms.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that
Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(e)(2) by failing have and follow a plan that had
provisions to identify at least once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been
taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that
have had forced or manual values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated
maintenance or operating activities
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(j)(1), which states:
§ 192.631 Control room management.
(a) …
(j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review
during inspection:
(1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this
section;
17 Response, at 9.
18 Violation Report, at 54.



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 8
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(j)(1) by failing to maintain for
review records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 192.631. Specifically,
the Notice alleged that Tallgrass failed to maintain records demonstrating compliance with the
requirement at § 192.631(e)(2) to perform monthly reviews of points affecting safety that have
been taken off scan during the year 2015.
In its Response, Tallgrass did not contest this violation, but did request that PHMSA reduce the
proposed civil penalty for this item.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(j)(1) by failing to maintain for
review records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 192.631. Respondent’s
arguments regarding the proposed civil penalty are addressed in full in the “Assessment of
Penalty” section below.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.19
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
including adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history
of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction
because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice
proposed a total civil penalty of $86,700 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.631(c)(3), for failing to test and verify an internal communication plan to provide adequate
means for manual operation of the pipeline safely, at least once each calendar year, but at
intervals not to exceed 15 months. Respondent does not contest the allegation of violation but
argues the penalty should be reduced based on the culpability penalty assessment criterion
because the company discovered and corrected the violation before it was discovered by
PHMSA. Respondent also argues that based on PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety Enforcement
Procedures (Enforcement Procedures)20 and the Department of Transportation’s regulations in 49
19 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.
20 PHMSA, Pipeline Safety Enforcement Procedures, at § 3.1.1.4 (Sept. 15, 2020), available at
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement/pipeline-enforcement-procedures.



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 9
CFR Part 5, PHMSA should further reduce the penalty assessment.
Having considered the arguments, while I agree with Respondent that finding and correcting a
violation prior to discovery by PHMSA could warrant assessing a credit under the culpability
assessment criterion, in this case Tallgrass did not correct the violation before it was discovered
by PHMSA.21 Tallgrass states that it tested its internal communication plan annually in 2015 and
2016, but discovered on September 12, 2017, that there was no internal “task item” directing
Tallgrass personnel to test the communication plan in 2017.22 Upon making this discovery,
Tallgrass personnel created a “task item” to complete a communication test in August 2018, and
conducted the test at that time in compliance with the annual requirement for the year 2018.23
Tallgrass, however, took no action to conduct a test to satisfy the requirement for the calendar
year 2017. Had the operator conducted a test to satisfy the 2017 interval, even if was not able to
conduct the test until early 2018 due to the discovery of the issue in September of 2017,
Tallgrass would have shown documented action to correct the violation for calendar year 2017
requirement. Instead, the operator simply skipped the 2017 test and resumed testing in August
2018. In other words, in the five years from 2015 to 2019, only four tests were completed, rather
than the five that were required. Respondent’s compliance with the regulation in 2018 and 2019
does not amount to a correction of its violation for failing to conduct the test in 2017.
With regard to Respondent’s additional arguments, the purpose of PHMSA’s Enforcement
Procedures is to provide PHMSA personnel with guidance on when to select different
enforcement tools and to improve PHMSA’s consistency in implementing the pipeline
enforcement program. The Enforcement Procedures do not bind PHMSA to any particular
course of action and do not mandate that PHMSA consider any penalty assessment criteria other
than those required by statute and regulation.24 Further, the provisions of 49 CFR Part 5 cited by
Respondent have been rescinded. Even before they were rescinded, they did not create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity to any party.25 Accordingly,
neither the Enforcement Procedures nor the Part 5 regulations require a reduction in the civil
penalty.
Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $19,000 for violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.631(c)(3).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.631(d)(2) and (3), for failing to educate controllers in fatigue mitigation strategies and how
off-duty activities contribute to fatigue and by failing to train controllers to recognize the effects
21 In its Recommendation, the Region suggested that a credit under culpability is only appropriate when an operator
“self-reports” a violation, but the Violation Report, at page 9, indicates a credit may be provided where “the operator
took documented action to address the cause of the non-compliance . . . before PHMSA learned of the violation.”
22 Response, at 2.
23 Id.
24 49 U.S.C. 60122; 49 CFR § 190.225.
25 See Enforcement Procedures, Section 3, page 1; 86 Fed. Reg. 17,292 (Apr. 2, 2021); and 49 CFR § 5.111 (2020).



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 10
of fatigue. Respondent argues the penalty should be reduced based on the gravity penalty
assessment criterion because it presented evidence with its Response that there was only one
instance of violation, rather than three instances of violation as alleged in the Notice.
Respondent also requests a reduction in the penalty based on the culpability penalty assessment
criterion because it discovered and corrected the violation before it was discovered by PHMSA.
Respondent again argues that based on the Enforcement Procedures and the Department of
Transportation’s regulations in 49 CFR Part 5, PHMSA should further reduce the penalty
assessment.
As explained in more detail above, the evidence provided with the Response confirms that two of
the three controllers received fatigue mitigation training within the required 15-month interval.
Based on this evidence, the number of instances of violation for this Item is reduced from three
to one. The gravity penalty assessment criterion has been adjusted accordingly, resulting in a
reduced penalty.
Tallgrass admits that one controller did not receive fatigue mitigation training within the required
15-month interval, and the evidence submitted with the Response shows the controller completed
training three months following the deadline for compliance. The issue was discovered and
corrected prior to PHMSA’s inspection. Accordingly, the record reflects that Tallgrass took
documented steps to correct the non-compliance with § 192.631(d)(2) and (3). Such action
warrants assessing a credit under the culpability penalty assessment criterion.
For the reasons discussed under Item 1, the penalty will not be further reduced based on the
PHMSA Enforcement Procedures or the Part 5 regulations.
Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $0 for violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.631(d)(2) and (3).
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.631(e)(2), for failing to have and follow a plan that includes provisions to identify at least
once each calendar month points affecting safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA
host, have had alarms inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual values
for periods of time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating activities.
Respondent requests PHMSA withdraw the allegation of violation and the associated penalty
arguing the company was not in violation of the regulation. For the reasons provided above, I
find that Respondent is in violation of Item 3. The Item and associated penalty, therefore, are not
withdrawn. Respondent made no additional arguments for a reduction in the penalty under the
assessment criteria.
Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $28,500 for violation of 49
C.F.R. § 192.631(e)(2).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.631(j)(1), for failing to maintain for review records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of § 192.631(e)(2). Respondent argues the penalty should be reduced based on the
culpability, gravity, and good faith penalty assessment criteria. Respondent argues it found and



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 11
corrected the violation prior to discovery of the violation by PHMSA so it should receive credit
under the culpability criterion. Respondent also argues for a reduction in the penalty based on
the gravity criterion since it was able to find and submit two of the missing records. Respondent
requests that the good faith credit be applied because it acted in good faith in attempting to
comply with the regulations. Respondent again argues that based on the Enforcement
Procedures and the Department of Transportation’s regulations in 49 CFR Part 5, PHMSA
should further reduce the penalty assessment. PHMSA’s Central Region agrees with Tallgrass
that the instances of violation should be reduced from 13 to 11 based on the evidence submitted
with the Response.
Respondent argues a reduction based on the culpability criterion is appropriate because it found
and corrected the violation prior to discovery of the violation by PHMSA. While Tallgrass states
it attempted to correct the violation, the company admits it was not able to recover 11 of the 13
missing records, so it cannot be concluded that the violation was corrected. A reduction in the
instances of violation is appropriate, however, because Tallgrass did recover two of the missing
records from August and December of 2015. Accordingly, the instances of violation of this Item
is reduced from 13 to 11 under the gravity assessment criterion, but no credit is awarded under
the culpability assessment criterion.
With respect to good faith, Tallgrass states that several of the records of its monthly SCADA
system reviews from 2015 “were lost due to an internal software migration issue” that occurred
while transitioning between SCADA and records management systems. During the inspection
and in its Response, Tallgrass stated it created and stored the records at issue in an attempt to
preserve them during the transition between systems, but a technical error resulted in the loss of
the records.26 I have considered Respondent’s assertion, but find a good faith credit is not
appropriate in this case. First, Respondent’s assertion that it performed the monthly review of
points affecting safety and created the required records in the first place has already been
factored into the civil penalty under the “nature” criterion, resulting in a reduced proposed
penalty amount for a “records” violation. Second, Respondent did not provide evidence
demonstrating what actions it took to ensure compliance by maintaining the records during the
transition.27 Taking appropriate action, such as by backing up records prior to upgrading or
making other changes in electronic recordkeeping systems, would be expected of operators in
order to preserve records required to be maintained by the code. The loss of records was an
unfortunate, but avoidable event. Finally, Respondent’s efforts to recover the records and to
improve its own recordkeeping processes to ensure future compliance have already been
considered and found not to justify a penalty reduction, with the exception of the two records
that were eventually located. Accordingly, I find a good faith credit is not warranted.
For the reasons discussed under Item 1, the penalty will not be reduced based on the PHMSA
Enforcement Procedures or the Part 5 regulations.
26 Violation Report, at 25; Response, at 13.
27 See In the Matter of White Cliffs Pipeline, LLC, CPF No. 3-2011-5012, 2013 WL 1247518, at *5 (Feb. 5, 2013)
(determining the good faith factor did not apply where there was no evidence demonstrating what actions the
operator took to maintain qualification test records).



CPF No. 3-2020-1008
Page 12
Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $19,000 for violation
of 49 C.F.R. § 192.631(j)(1).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $66,500.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to 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 (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $66,500 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 district
court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)
and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically
stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any
corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a
stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final
administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
July 2, 2021
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320201008>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `8a8f84035de2b8a0b65ebaa4c3ef691907bccc25fd519445792708a650ea5c29`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T07:49:14.633Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-320201008`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "320201008",
  "operator": "TALLGRASS INTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC",
  "region": "Central",
  "pipelineType": "GAS INTERSTATE ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "192.631(c)(3)",
    "192.631(d)(2)",
    "192.631(d)(3)",
    "192.631(e)(2)",
    "192.631(j)(1)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 5,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "320201008_Final Order_07022021_(18-159646S).pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_Final%20Order_07022021_(18-159646S).pdf",
      "bytes": 250129,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320201008_Final Order_07022021_(18-159646S)_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_Final%20Order_07022021_(18-159646S)_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 172744,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320201008_NOPV PCP_10262020.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_NOPV%20PCP_10262020.pdf",
      "bytes": 318962,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320201008_NOPV PCP_10262020_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_NOPV%20PCP_10262020_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 161195,
      "category": "case_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "320201008_Operator Response to Notice_12112020.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320201008/320201008_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_12112020.pdf",
      "bytes": 598180,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 1,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "TALLGRASS INTERSTATE GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC"
}
```