# CHARLOTTESVILLE, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 120120007
- **title:** CHARLOTTESVILLE, CITY OF — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2012-12-13
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.161(c), 192.317(b), 192.353(c), 192.357(a), 192.479(a), 192.707(c), 192.739(a), 192.805(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120120007.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120120007.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-120120007
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/120120007
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving CHARLOTTESVILLE, CITY OF. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.161(c),  192.317(b),  192.353(c),  192.357(a),  192.479(a),  192.707(c),  192.739(a),  192.805(a). The case was opened on 2012-12-13 and is reported as closed as of 2014-12-16. Proposed civil penalty: $88,500. Assessed civil penalty: $79,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

120120007_Closure Letter_12162014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120007/120120007_Closure%20Letter_12162014.pdf

120120007_Closure Letter_12162014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120007/120120007_Closure%20Letter_12162014_text.pdf

120120007_Final Order_08132014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120007/120120007_Final%20Order_08132014.pdf

120120007_Final Order_08132014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120007/120120007_Final%20Order_08132014_text.pdf

120120007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12132012.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120007/120120007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12132012.pdf

120120007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12132012_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120007/120120007_NOPV_PCP_PCO_12132012_text.pdf

120120007_Operator Response_01142013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/120120007/120120007_Operator%20Response_01142013.pdf

120120007_Closure Letter_12162014_text.pdf

U.S. Department Of Transportation Pipeline and 609.989.2171
Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
820 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 103
West Trenton, NJ 08628
EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
December 16, 2014
Mr. Maurice Jones
City Manager
City of Charlottesville
305 4th Street NW
Charlottesville, VA 22903
CPF 1-2012-0007
Dear Mr. Jones:
On August 13, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to the City of Charlottesville a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order
included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the
documentation you provided, and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Byron Coy, PE
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Cc: Mr. James Hotinger, VA SCC

120120007_Final Order_08132014_text.pdf

AUGUST 13, 2014
Mr. Maurice Jones
City Manager
City of Charlottesville
305 4th Street NW
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Re: CPF No. 1-2012-0007
Dear Mr. Jones:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one
allegation of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of
$79,300, and specifies actions that need to be taken by the City of Charlottesville to comply with
the pipeline safety regulations.
The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid
and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region,
this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed
effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Byron Coy, P.E., Director, Eastern Region, OPS
Joshua L. Menter, Esq., Miller, Balis & O-Neil, PC, Counsel for City of Charlottesville
Ms. Lauren Hildebrand, P.E., Director of Public Utilities, City of Charlottesville
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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 )
)
City of Charlottesville, Virginia, ) CPF No. 1-2012-0007
a municipal corporation, )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
Between January 24 and March 9, 2011, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the
Virginia State Corporation Commission (VA SCC), as agent for 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 the City of Charlottesville
(Charlottesville, City, or Respondent) in Charlottesville, Virginia. The City operates a
municipally-owned natural gas distribution system, consisting of 316 miles of main and 17,828
service lines.
1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated December 13, 2012, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that Charlottesville had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $88,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed that Respondent be required to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Charlottesville responded to the Notice by letter dated January 14, 2013 (Response). The City
contested four of the eight allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice,
and requested that the proposed civil penalty be reduced or eliminated. Respondent did not
request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
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. § 192.739(a), which states:
1 http://www.charlottesville.org/ (last accessed May 2, 2013)



2
§ 192.739 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection and
testing.
(a) Each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs),
and pressure regulating station and its equipment must be subjected at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, to
inspections and tests to determine that it is
(1) In good mechanical condition . . . .
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to demonstrate
that each pressure regulating station and its equipment had been inspected and tested at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
2 Specifically, the Notice alleged
that Charlottesville could not provide inspection records to demonstrate that the Rt. 29 North,
Rutledge, and McIntire Park pressure regulating stations had been inspected and tested at the
required intervals.
The Notice provided the following chart of violations:
Station Inspection Date Inspection Date Calendar Year
Missed
Number of Days Late
Rt. 29 North 12/2/2008 1/8/2010 2009 8
Rutledge 12/2/2008 1/8/2010 2009 8
McIntire Park 12/8/2009 1/5/2011 2010 5
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739(a) by failing to demonstrate
that each pressure regulating station and its equipment had been inspected and tested at intervals
not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.161(c), which states:
§ 192.161 Supports and anchors.
(a) …
(c) Each support or anchor on an exposed pipeline must be made of
durable, noncombustible material and must be designed and installed as
follows:
(1) Free expansion and contraction of the pipeline between supports
or anchors may not be restricted.
(2) Provision must be made for the service conditions involved.
(3) Movement of the pipeline may not cause disengagement of the
support equipment.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.161(c) by failing to install supports
on an exposed pipeline that were made of durable, noncombustible material. Specifically, the
2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (December 13, 2012) (Violation Report), Exhibit A4.



3
Notice alleged that Charlottesville had installed wooden blocks that were not fastened to the
building as support for an exposed roof main.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.161(c) by failing to install
supports on an exposed pipeline that were made of durable, noncombustible material.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.317(b), which states:
§ 192.317 Protection from hazards.
(a) ….
(b) Each aboveground transmission line or main, not located offshore
or in inland navigable water areas, must be protected from accidental
damage by vehicular traffic or other similar causes, either by being placed
at a safe distance from the traffic or by installing barricades.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.317(b) by failing to protect an
aboveground transmission line or main from accidental damage by vehicular traffic, either by
placing the line at a safe distance from traffic or by installing barricades. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that Charlottesville did not protect an aboveground regulator station from accidental
vehicular damage by placing it either at a safe distance from traffic or by installing barricades at
East Market Street and Old Preston Avenue in Charlottesville. According to the Notice,
inspectors photographed the regulator sitting 12 feet from the edge of the road, where the road
curves at East Market Street and Old Preston Avenue.
In its Response, Charlottesville raised three defenses. First, it argued that the regulator station
had been located at a safe distance from traffic since its initial installation, as the station was
located 12 feet from the road’s concrete curb line, the road had a six-inch-high curb, the area had
a 25 miles per hour (mph) speed limit, and the regulator was located on the inside of a curve in
the road. Respondent further argued that because of the angle of the road, a speeding car might
miss the curve but would travel away from the regulator station. Second, Respondent argued
that the VA SCC had never before suggested that the regulator station was not at a safe distance.
The City pointed out that the regulator station had been inspected in November 2007, and the
VA SCC had not communicated any concerns regarding its safe distance from traffic at that time.
Third, Charlottesville argued that, in an effort to be proactive and ensure compliance with
49 C.F.R. § 192.317(b), the Chief Gas Engineer of Charlottesville had made repeated requests,
over a three-year period, for guidance or an interpretation of the phrase “at a safe distance from
the traffic.” Respondent stated that after three years with no response, the City provided the VA
SCC with its interpretation, suggesting that “safe distance” should be a function of the speed
limit, the road edge construction (i.e., concrete curb versus edge of pavement), and other
considerations. Still, Charlottesville received no response from the VA SCC until it received the
Notice alleging this violation.
In response to Respondent’s arguments, PHMSA asserted that it was unaware of any verbal or
written requests by Charlottesville to the VA SCC for guidance or an interpretation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.317(b). PHMSA also asserted that Respondent could have searched PHMSA’s public



4
website for enforcement guidance or sought informal guidance and interpretive assistance, in
accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.11. The agency further argued that Respondent could have
obtained commercially available software such as WinDOT, industry standards, or industry
association information as sources of pipeline safety guidance and regulation interpretations.
Moreover, PHMSA explained that the agency had issued an informal interpretation of the phrase
“at a safe distance from traffic.” The agency interpretation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.317(b), dated
October 9, 1995, states, in relevant part:
As to §192.317(b), we have not adopted criteria to judge the safety of
distances separating aboveground gas pipeline facilities from vehicular
traffic. So a safe distance would be whatever a reasonable and prudent
operator would conclude is safe under the circumstances, considering
relevant factors such as the speed limit, the direction of traffic, the terrain,
and any natural barriers.
Considering the arguments and evidence, I find that the regulation does not provide a “bright
line” test, but the 1995 interpretation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.317(b) does provide useful clarification
of the phrase “at a safe distance from traffic.” In fact, the 1995 interpretation addresses the very
question that the City had asked the VA SCC: “What criteria can be used to determine if the
pipeline is a ‘safe distance from the traffic’ under §192.317(b)?” by providing a description of
the relevant factors that need to be considered.3 While barricades can provide additional
protection from vehicular traffic, I find that under the particular factual scenario here,
Charlottesville reasonably considered the relevant factors, such as the speed limit (25 mph), the
direction of traffic (angle of the road slowing the traffic), and any natural barriers (12 feet from
the road’s concrete curb line and a six-inch high curb). Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order
that Item 3 of the Notice be withdrawn.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.353(c), which states:
§ 192.353 Customer meters and regulators: Location.
(a) …
(c) Each meter installed within a building must be located in a
ventilated place and not less than 3 feet (914 millimeters) from any source
of ignition or any source of heat which might damage the meter.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.353(c) by failing to install a meter
within a building in a ventilated place and at a distance not less than three feet from any potential
source of ignition or heat which might damage the meter. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Charlottesville had installed a meter in a location without proper ventilation, near a wood storage
area, and less than three feet from electrical equipment inside a building in the 1730 block of
Allied Street in Charlottesville.
In its Response, Respondent raised two defenses. First, the City argued that the Notice
3 On file with PHMSA.



5
incorrectly alleged that the City had installed the meter less than three feet from electrical
equipment inside a building. Charlottesville explained that there was no electrical equipment
inside the building when it installed the meter and that the electrical equipment was installed
later. Charlottesville acknowledged that the electrical equipment had been installed 2.5 feet from
the meter but argued that the distance was only slightly less than three feet. Second, Respondent
argued that, given the size of the room, PHMSA incorrectly concluded that the space was not
sufficiently ventilated. Respondent also questioned any suggestion by PHMSA that wood, as a
source of ignition, would interact with leaking gas to trigger an immediate combustion.
PHMSA acknowledged that there was some exchange of air in the room, but argued it was
neither adequate to ensure natural venting nor adequate enough to consider the large space
properly ventilated. The agency also noted that the spontaneous combustion of wood in the
building was not the issue but that the wood could be ignited by some other event or activity.
Any such ignition would have the potential to cause fire damage to the gas meter, the rapid
release of natural gas, and an explosion inside the building.
The regulation requires that each meter installed within a building be located in a ventilated
place not less than three feet from any source of ignition. When the meter was installed, there
was no source of ignition or any source of heat within three feet of the meter. However, the later
installation of the electrical equipment by the operator, less than three feet from the meter, and a
wood storage area created the condition cited in the Notice. Accordingly, based upon a review
of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.353(c) by failing to have a
meter in a ventilated place within a building and less than three feet from any source of ignition.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.357(a), which states:
§ 192.357 Customer meters and regulators: Installation.
(a) Each meter and each regulator must be installed so as to minimize
anticipated stresses upon the connecting piping and the meter.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.357(a) by failing to install a meter
so as to minimize anticipated stress upon the connecting pipeline and meter. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that during the audit, VA SCC inspectors observed and photographed a meter
inside a building in the 1730 block of Allied Street, but the meter had no supports to limit the
possible horizontal movement of the pipe and the meter.
In its Response, Charlottesville did not contest this allegation of violation but described the
City’s post-inspection corrective measure of moving the meter outside the building so that it had
proper supports to minimize stresses. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I
find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.357(a) by failing to install a meter to minimize
anticipated stress upon the connecting pipeline and meter.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a), which states:
§ 192.479 Atmospheric corrosion control: General.
(a) Each operator must clean and coat each pipeline or portion of



6
pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere, except pipelines under
paragraph (c) of this section.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and coat
each pipeline or portion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere. Specifically, the Notice alleged
that during the audit, VA SCC inspectors observed and photographed (1) approximately 320 feet
of inadequately coated two-inch main secured to a row of buildings and feeding eight meters to
various commercial customers at North Wing Barracks Road, and (2) a two-inch main on the
side of and across the roof of a building in the 1730 block of Allied Street in Charlottesville.
Respondent did not contest these allegations of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of
all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a) by failing to clean and
coat each pipeline or portion of its pipeline exposed to the atmosphere.
Item 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c), which states:
§ 192.707 Line markers for mains and transmission lines.
(a) …
(c) Pipelines aboveground. Line markers must be placed and
maintained along each section of a main and transmission line that is
located aboveground in an area accessible to the public.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c) by failing to place and
maintain line markers along exposed sections of main lines at two aboveground locations at
North Wings Barracks Road and in the 1730 block of Allied Street. Specifically, the Notice
alleged that during their audit, VA SCC inspectors observed and photographed two locations that
did not have line markers: (1) a two-inch main secured to a row of buildings feeding eight meters
to various commercial customers at North Wing Barracks Road; and (2) a two-inch main on the
side of the building in the 1730 block of Allied Street.
In its Response, Charlottesville contested both alleged violations, arguing that neither pipe
segment was a transmission or main line. Instead, the City argued that they constituted service
lines, for which no line markers were required, according to the definition of “service line” found
at 49 C.F.R. § 192.3. In both cases, the City asserted that the pipeline segments distributed gas at
the same pressure at which the gas was delivered to the customer. Thus, Respondent argued,
each pipe segment should be considered a service manifold, i.e., part of a service line.4
Charlottesville cited an e-mail from the Virginia SCC in support of its argument that the pipe
segment at Barracks Road could not be considered a service line because it was upstream of a
service regulator that reduced the pressure to the same pressure at which the gas was delivered to
the customer. Charlottesville argued that the VA SCC’s interpretation, as reflected in the e-mail,
also supported the City’s argument that the Allied Street pipeline segment must also be
considered part of a service line because it was located downstream of a service regulator that
reduced the pressure of that segment to the level at which the gas was delivered to a small
4 Response, at Attachment 2.



7
number of small commercial customers.
First, I disagree with the City’s interpretation as to what constitutes a “main” versus a “service
line” at both locations. The City relies too heavily on whether a pipe segment lies downstream
or upstream of a regulator. The real crux of the issue is the pressure at which gas is ultimately
delivered to the customer. Section 49 C.F.R. § 192.3 defines “service line” as follows:
Service line means a distribution line that transports gas from a common
source of supply to an individual customer, to two adjacent or adjoining
residential or small commercial customers, or to multiple residential or
small commercial customers served through a meter header or manifold. . . .
The “common source of supply” in the service line definition is the same “common source of the
supply” found in the definition of a “main” in 49 C.F.R § 192.3:
Main means a distribution line that serves as a common source of supply for
more than one service line.
A key aspect of the definition of a “main” is that it serves as a common source of supply for
more than one service line. As shown on page 3 of Exhibit B03 in the Violation Report for the
Barracks Road location, there is more than one meter set and therefore more than one service
line along the common source of the supply identified as a main line on pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit
3. The main lines were correctly identified in the Exhibits. Each of the respective service lines
starts from the tap off the common source of supply through the meter set. Since each customer
is served through a line that has its own meter and service regulator that reduces the pressure to a
particular customer, the line serving that group of customers must be a main line.
Additionally, the City mischaracterized the regulators at each location as “service regulators.” A
service regulator is defined in 49 C.F.R § 192.3 as follows:
Service regulator means the device on a service line that controls the pressure
of gas delivered from a higher pressure to the pressure provided to the
customer. A service regulator may serve one customer or multiple customers
through a meter header or manifold.
Specifically, the City argued that the Fischer 627R at the Barracks Road location could be
considered a service regulator. As such, according to Charlottesville, any portion of the pipeline
segment downstream of that regulator could be considered service line.
This is an incorrect interpretation. As mentioned by both the operator and VA SCC, the Fischer
627R regulator reduces the pressure from about 90 to 30 psig. Each of the meters off the taps in
Exhibit B3 are then further reducing pressure from the common source of supply (or main)
running at 30 psig to the customer pressure 7” W.C. Even though the Fischer 627R is
controlling pressure from a higher pressure (i.e. 90 psig), it is not a service regulator since the 30
psig is not the pressure at which gas is ultimately delivered to the customer(s). As correctly
stated by the VA SCC, if the customers were taking 30 psig directly, the Fischer 627 R would be
considered a service regulator. However, the customers are taking a pressure of 7” W.C., so the



8
Fischer 627 R cannot be considered a service regulator. The meter sets that reduce the pressure
to the customers’ pressure of 7” W.C. are considered service regulators. The same type of
analysis holds true for the main line at Allied Street.
The segment of two-inch pipe running up the building in the 1730 block of Allied Street (shown
on pg. 3 in Exhibit B 08), also operates at about 30 psig. The evidence indicates that this line
provides a common source of supply for more than one service line, which aligns with the
definition of a main. The service lines begin at the point where they branch off from the main as
each of the service lines feed from the main. The main has a separate customer meter and
regulator to further reduce the gas to inches of water column pressure provided to the
customers. The two-inch pipeline is not a service line, as the City contends, since the pressure in
the line is not the same as the pressure at which gas is provided to the customers. The regulator
shown on page 3 of Exhibit B 08 is not a service regulator since it simply reduces pressure from
approximately 90 psig to approximately 30 psig. If the 30 psig were fed directly to a customer,
the line running up the building could be considered a service line and the regulator could be
considered a service regulator; however, the 30 psig is not the pressure provided to the customers
and the regulator is not reducing the pressure to a level provided to the customers. Each of the
other regulators on the respective service lines that reduce the 30 psig pressure to the inches of
water column pressure provided to customers is considered a service regulator.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. § 192.707(c) by failing to place and maintain line markers along exposed sections of
main lines at two aboveground locations, North Wings Barracks Road and in the 1730 block of
Allied Street.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(a), which states:
§ 192.805 Qualification program.
Each operator shall have and follow a written qualification program.
The program shall include provisions to:
(a) Identify covered tasks…
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(a) by failing to have and
follow a written operator qualification (OQ) program that identified the calibration and
maintenance of field transmitters used in the City’s telemetry system as a covered task.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that the VA SCC staff reviewed the City’s OQ program and
found no evidence of a qualification program for City employees who calibrate and maintain
pressure transducers used in the City’s telemetry system.
In its Response, Charlottesville contested the allegation of violation on a number of grounds.
The City argued that the calibration of telemetering equipment is not a covered task because
calibration is not required anywhere in Part 192. Additionally, the City asserted that after the
OQ regulations were promulgated, it met with the VA SCC to identify and define what activities
conducted by its personnel should be included as covered tasks. Calibration of telemetering
equipment was not one of them. Since the OQ program was developed over 10 years ago,
neither PHMSA nor the VA SCC had ever indicated that the City’s written qualification program
was not in compliance with § 192.805. The City conceded that § 192.741 requires an operator in



9
certain circumstances to install telemetering, but argued that it does not require that such
equipment be calibrated.
I disagree. Section 192.801(b) defines a covered task as any activity that (1) is performed on a
pipeline facility, (2) is an operations or maintenance task, (3) is performed as a requirement of
Part 192, and (4) affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline. Section 192.741(c) states that
if there are indications of abnormal pressure, the regulator and auxiliary equipment must be
inspected and the unsatisfactory operating conditions corrected. Since the calibration of
telemetering equipment is performed on a pipeline facility, is part of the operation of the pipeline
system, is performed as a requirement of Part 192 and affects the operation of such pipeline, it is
a covered task.
Covered tasks not only include those activities that are specifically prescribed by Part 192 but
also include ones undertaken as part of performance-based requirements. Subpart N of Part 192
gives each operator the opportunity to identify the covered tasks for all of its operations and
maintenance activities that are required by Part 192, even if an activity isn’t specifically
prescribed. In this case, calibration of the City’s telemetry equipment is a necessary and integral
part of insuring satisfactory operating conditions under § 192.741 and should therefore be
included in the City’s written qualification program. Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.805(a) by failing to have and follow a
written qualification program that identified the calibration and maintenance of field transmitters
used in its telemetry system as a covered task.
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
$100,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any
related series of violations. 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; the Respondent’s
ability to pay the penalty and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing
business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations. 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 $88,500 for the violations cited above.
The City contended generally in its Response that the “very high level of penalties proposed” in
the Notice were not justified or appropriate under the penalty assessment criteria set forth in
49 C.F.R. § 190.225. The City cited two mitigating factors that should serve to eliminate or
greatly reduce the penalty amounts. The first was that the City’s “past conduct” demonstrated a
“consistent attitude of compliance,” as reflected by the fact that each time City received
notifications of possible non-compliance from the VA SCC, it promptly complied with the



10
inspectors’ requests and that the City had been “proactive” in asking questions about the intent of
the various regulations.5 According to the City, the Notice in this case assumed just the
opposite, namely, that Charlottesville had made no efforts to comply since the date of the
inspection and therefore a compliance order was needed.
This is incorrect. Neither the Notice nor the underlying Violation Report assumed that the City
had failed to take corrective actions nor was the proposed penalty higher because of any
perceived recalcitrance or inaction by the City. PHMSA does not assess higher penalties
because of the length of time that occurs after an inspection before a violation has corrected or
whether it’s been corrected at all. PHMSA expects any reasonable and prudent operator to
correct violations once they have occurred and been brought to its attention. For this reason,
PHMSA does not apply any sort of “good faith” credit for actions taken by an operator to correct
a violation subsequent to a regulatory inspection or accident investigation. Such a credit only
applies where an operator’s actions prior to the commission of a violation were based on a
reasonable interpretation of the regulatory requirement and the operator had a credible belief that
its approach to achieving compliance was faithful to its duty to meet the regulatory obligation.6
Second, the City argued that its good compliance record should warrant a reduction in the
proposed penalties, noting that “since 2005 until the NOPV issued in this docket, there has not
been one NOPV sent to Charlottesville with respect to any regulation”7 It is accurate to say that
the City has not been found in violation of any Federal pipeline safety regulation by PHMSA
within the five years prior to the 2011 inspection. This consideration was noted in the Violation
Report and was the reason why PHMSA did not propose an enhanced penalty based on prior
violations. If there had been prior violations, the proposed penalties would have been higher.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.739(a), for failing to demonstrate that the Rt. 29 North, Rutledge, and McIntire Park
pressure regulating stations had been inspected and tested at intervals not exceeding 15 months,
but at least once each calendar year annually. As discussed above, I found that the City had
missed timely inspections at three regulator stations. The City acknowledged that three
violations had occurred but argued that they were “technical” or “de minimis” violations that
dictated either no penalty at all or a reduced one.
I disagree. Regular inspection of all pressure limiting stations, relief devices, and pressure
regulating stations—as well as any associated equipment—is necessary to prevent overpressure
at compressor stations. Overpressure at these stations can lead to pipeline failures and safety
risks to the public. The regulation sets a specific minimum inspection interval to ensure safety
and the City missed that deadline at three different stations. In addition, the nature and reduced
gravity of the violations were already taken into consideration by the agency, as reflected in
Section C-2 – Consequences of an Accident/Incident of the Violation Report.8 If the violations
5 Response, at 1-2.
6 E.g., See Violation Report, at 6.
7 Id.
8 Violation Report, at 5.



11
had involved more stations or had threatened the integrity or safe operation of the pipeline, the
proposed penalty would have been higher. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $10,300 for violation of
49 C.F.R. § 192.739.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.161(c), for failing to install supports on an exposed pipeline that were made of durable,
noncombustible material. The City did not contest the allegation of violation but argued that the
violation did not present any significant safety risk since the wooden pipe support in question, if
it failed, would only result in the pipe falling 3.5 inches to the flat surface of the building roof. It
further argued that, according to past practice of the VA SCC, such a violation had not given rise
to the assessment of any penalty at all.
9
I find these arguments unpersuasive. First, the risks inherent in an exposed pipe segment being
supported only by a loose wooden block relate not only to the combustible nature of the wooden
support but also to the instability of a support not properly fastened to the building. The City
failed to take proper precautions to protect its facilities from the risks of both fire and instability.
Second, the decision and authority to seek civil penalties for this violation rests not with the VA
SCC but with PHMSA and is made in accordance with Federal statutes and the agency’s own
penalty assessment criteria. The penalty here is far less than the statutory maximum authorized
by Congress and is consistent with penalties currently being assessed in other cases by PHMSA.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $16,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.161(c).
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $13,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.353(c), for failing to have a meter in a ventilated place within a building and less than
three feet from any source of ignition. As discussed above, the regulation requires that each
meter installed within a building must be located at least three feet away from any source of
ignition. When the meter was originally installed in this case, there was no ignition source
within three feet of the meter, but Respondent was still responsible for the subsequent
installation of the electrical equipment after the meter was installed. Respondent did not argue
that it was impossible or even difficult to install the meter at the minimum required distance from
the electrical equipment.
The City further argued that under 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, it was “culpable, at most, of a technical
violation, and there was no intent to violate its substance.”10 I disagree that the violation here
was only “technical” in nature, since the proximity of ignition sources is a well-known hazard
associated with all gas facilities and § 192.353 clearly specifies the minimum distance required
between gas meters and potential ignition sources such as electrical panels. I would also note
that according to the Violation Report, this violation only minimally affected the safe operation
of the pipeline and therefore the proposed penalty was lower than it otherwise could have been.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $13,700 for
9 Response, at 4.
10 Response, at 7.



12
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.353(c).
Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $32,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.479(a), for failing to clean and coat each pipeline or portion of its pipeline exposed to the
atmosphere. As discussed above, I found that the City failed to properly coat two different
sections of pipe at North Wing Barracks Road and in the 1730 block of Allied Street. The City
did not contest the violations but objected to the proposed penalty for the reasons discussed
above, including that it had promptly corrected the violations after being alerted by the VA SCC.
As discussed in Item 4, PHMSA does not take into account post-inspection actions to achieve
compliance as a basis for lowering a proposed penalty.
The City also argued that there was no rationale provided in the Notice to justify the proposed
penalty. I would note that the Violation Report, not the Notice, sets forth the rationale for a
proposed penalty. In this case, the Violation Report indicated that the violations of § 192.479(a)
potentially compromised the integrity or safe operation of these sections of pipe located in a
populated area or other high-risk area. Proper cleaning and coating of each pipeline is essential
to the prevention and control of corrosion; the failure to protect the pipe surface exposed to the
atmosphere could result in a release and the possible ignition of natural gas from a breach in the
pipeline wall. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of
$32,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.479(a).
Item 7: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.707(c), for failing to place and maintain line markers along exposed sections of main lines
in two locations aboveground, North Wings Barracks Road and in the 1730 block of Allied
Street. As discussed above, I found that the pipe 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 46822