# TAMPA BAY PIPELINE CO. — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 220056012
- **title:** TAMPA BAY PIPELINE CO. — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2005-09-13
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 195.505(c), 195.505(d), 195.505(e), 195.505(f), 195.505(g), 195.507(a), 195.509(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056012.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056012.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056012
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220056012
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving TAMPA BAY PIPELINE CO.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.505(a),  195.505(b),  195.505(c),  195.505(d),  195.505(e),  195.505(f),  195.505(g),  195.507(a),  195.509(a). The case was opened on 2005-09-13 and is reported as closed as of 2008-04-22. Proposed civil penalty: $71,500. Assessed civil penalty: $71,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

220056012_Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration_03312008.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056012/220056012_Decision%20on%20the%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_03312008.pdf

220056012_decision on the petition for reconsideration_03312008_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056012/220056012_decision%20on%20the%20petition%20for%20reconsideration_03312008_text.pdf

220056012_Final Order_12012006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056012/220056012_Final%20Order_12012006.pdf

220056012_Petition For Reconsideration_12212006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056012/220056012_Petition%20For%20Reconsideration_12212006.pdf

220056012_Final Order_12012006.pdf

@
U.5. Deporlment
of Tronsporlotion
Pipeline ond Hozordous
Moleriots Sofety Administrolion
400 Seventh Street, S,W.
Washington, D.C, 20590
DEC - I zrm
Mr. Robert L. Rose
President
Tampa Bay Pipeline Company
P.O. Box 35236
Sarasota, Fl,34242
Re: CPF No.2-2005-6012
Dear Mr. Rose:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety
in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation and assesses a civil penalty of
$71 ,500. It further finds that you have completed the actions specified in the Notice required to
comply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the civil penalty is paid, this enforcement
action will be closed. Your receipt of the Final Order constitutes service of that document under
49 C.F.R. € 190.5.
Sincerely,
tu-
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
PHMSA, Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
Ms. Lin<ia Daugherty, Director, Souihern Region, OPS;
Mr. Glenn I). Howell, General Manager. Tampa Bay Pipeline Company



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAF'ETY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20590
In the Matter of
Tampa Bay Pipeline Company'
Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CPF No.2-2003-6012
FINAL ORDER
On May 17-18, 2005, pursuart to 49 U.S.C. $ 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) conducted an on-
site pipeline safety inspection of Respondent's Operator Qualification (OQ) procedwes and
records at its Tampa, Florida office. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southem Region,
OPS issued to Respondent, by letter dated September I 3, 2005, a Notice of Probable Violation,
Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F'R.
$ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent had committed violations of 49 C.F.R.
Part I 95 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $71 ,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice
also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. '.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated Oclober 7,2005 (Response). Respondent
stated that it intended to revise its OQ program in accordance with the Proposed Compliance
Order, but requested a hearing regarding the Notice and the Proposed Civil Penalty. The hearing
washefdonMarch 25,2006 inAtlanta, Georgia. Afterthishearing,Respondentoffered
additional information on April 25,2006.
F'INDINGS OF VIOLATION
Item I in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(a) by:
A. failing to establish a list identif,ving its OQ "covered tasks" by the applicable deadline of
April27,2001;
B. failing to include all covered tasks in the list once it was established; and
C. failing to review the covered task list using the four-part test with Part 195 operation and
maintenance activities.



Respondent did not contest allegations B or C. With respect to A, the allegation that Respondent
failed to establish a list identifying its OQ covered tasks by the applicable deadline, Respondent
stated at the hearing that it had written a "redbook framework" for developing an OQ program
prior to Aprll27,2001, but acknowledged that this document was actually an outline of only a
few pages that merely reiterated the OQ regulations in Subpart G of C.F.R. Part 195. Therefore,
Respondent was unable to document that it had an OQ program for its pipeline system completed
and in place by April 27,2001 when required. Respondent then stated that it had reason to
believe that it had generated a covered task list in December of 2002 and offered a CD that it
claimed showed that these tasks were saved on its computer between December 11,2002 and
January 2,2003. Respondent's claim, however, contradicts a slatement made by Respondent's
own OQ Plan Administrator to OPS at the time of the inspection that the covered task list was
not completed until 2005 after it was received from a sister company. Moreover, these dates are
still substantially later than the Aprrl27,2001 deadline set forth in the relevant regulation.
Respondeni faile<i to produce any verifiable contemporaneous documentation or other persuasive
evidence to show that it had established a list identiffing its OQ covered tasks by Apil27 ,
2O0l
when required. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(a) as described in the
Notice.
Item2 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(b) by failing to have
OQ provisions in place to ensure that contractor individuals performing covered tasks on its
pipeline were qualified, and failing to include provisions for the use of training to qualify or re-
qualify individuals to perform covered tasks. Respondent did not contest this item.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(b) as more fully described in the Notice.
Item 3 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(b) by failing to have
OQ provisions in place to ensure that individuals performing covered tasks on its pipeline were
qualified to recognizc and react to abnormal operating conditions (AOCs). At the hearing,
Respondent repeated its statement that it had written a "redbook framework" for developing an
OQ program prior to the April 27,2001 deadline. Respondent, however, failed to demonstrate
that it had an OQ program addressing the requirements associated with AOCs in place when
required. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(b) as described in the Notice.
Item 4 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(c) by failing to have
OQ provisions in place to ensure that any covered task performed by an individual who is not
qualified is done only ifdirected and observed by an individual that is qualified. Respondent did
not contest this item. Accordingly, I find that Respclndent violated $ 195.505(c) as more fully
described in the Notice.
Item 5 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.505(d) by failing to have
OQ provisions in place to evaluate an individual whose performance of a covered task may have
contributed to an accident. Respondent did not contest this item. Accordingly, I irnd that
Respondent violated $ 195.505(d) as more fully described in the Notice.



Item 6 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. g 195.505(e) by failing to have
OQ provisions in place to evaluate an individual for the purpose of determining whether the
individual is no longer qualifi.ed to perform a covered task. Respondent did not contest this item.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(e) as more fully described in the Notice.
Item 7 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R- $ 195.505(0 by failing to have
OQ provisions in place to identiff and communicate changes that affect covered tasks to
individuals performing tlrose covered tasks. Respondent did not contest this item. Accordingly,
I find that Respondent violated $ 195.505(f) as more fully described in the Notice.
Item 8 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. g 195.505(9) by failing to have
OQ provisions in place identifying the re-evaluation intervals for covered tasks. In its post-
hearing submittal, Respondent asserted that "The TBPL management had elected to do re-
evaluations every five years; therefore, re-evaluation was not required until Decemb et,20A7."
This response, ho'wever, does not demonstrate that re-evaluatiorr intervals had been established
when required, much less document any supporting justifications for interval length. Respondent
failed to demonstrate that it had an OQ program addressing the re-evaluation intervals !n place
when required. Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated g 195.505(g) as described in the
Notice.
Item 9 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. g 195.507 by:
A. failing to maintain qualification records including the dates of current qualification;
B. failing to maintain qualification records identifying the covered tasks of each individual;
C. failing to maintain qualification records including the qualilication methods and criteria;
and
D. failing to maintain qualification records for contractor individuals who had performed
covered tasks on the pipeline.
Respondent did not contest allegations B or C. With respect to A, the allegation that Respondent
failed to maintain qualification records including the dates of current qualification, Respondent
acknowledged that these records contained no dates. With respect to D, the allegation that
Respondent failed to maintain qualification records for contractor individuals who had
performed covered tasks on the pipeline, Respondent acknowledged that at the time, it failed to
produce any records that would have demonstrated that contractor individuals had been qualified
on tasks they performed on its pipeline prior to performing them. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent violated $ 195.507 by failing to maintain the specified records during the relevant
time period.
Item 10 in the Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. $ 195.509 by failing to have an
OQ program completed and in place by April 2l ,2001. Respondent again relied on its argument
that it had a "redbook framework" in place by the April 27,2001 deadline. Once again,
however, Respondent conceded that this document was actually an outline of only a few pages
that merely reiterated the OQ regulations in Subpart G of C.F.R. Part 195^ Respondent failed to
produce any verifiable contemporaneous documentation or other persuasive evidence to show



that it had a complete oQ program in place by April 27,2001 when required.r Accordingly, I
find that Respondent violated g 195.509 as described in the Notice.
These findings ofviolation 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 a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per
violation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of
violations.
49 U.S.C. g 60122 and 49 C.F.R. $ 190.225 require that, in determining the amount of the civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
degree cfRespondent's culpability, history ofRespondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability
to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve coqpliance, the effect on
Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require.
With respect to Item 1.A, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent's failure
to establish a list identifuing its OQ covered tasks by the applicable deadline of April 27,2001 ln
accordance with $ 195.505(a). Having a complete OQ program in place to ensure that
individuals performing covered tasks are properly qualified is an important part of pipeline
safety. Respondent's pipeline system is located in urban and suburban areas and the
consequences ofany errors that cause or conftibute to a release from the pipeline could be
serious. Establishing the covered tasks on a given pipeline system is akey step in developing
any OQ progam because in order to assess the effectiveness ofan operator's process for
establishing that an individual is qualified to perform a given task, that task and its criteria must
be available to compare against the individual's previous evaluations and qualifications.
Respondent has presented no information that would warant a reduction in the civil penalty
amormt proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and
considered lhe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of$5,000 for its violation
of$ 195.505(a).
With respect to Item 3, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $5,000 for Respondent's failure to
have OQ provisions to ensure that individuals performing covered tasks were qualified to
recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions in accordance with $ 195.505(b). Having a
complete OQ program in place to ensure that individuals performing covered tasks are properly
qualified is an important part of pipeline safety. Respondent's pipeline system is located in
urban and suburban areas and the consequences of any errors that cause or contribute to a release
from the pipeline could be serious. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant
a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
' Respondent failed to make this showing at the time of the inspection and again failed to make this showing during
the hearing. Respondent did submit an undated copy of the OQ plan that it ultimately developed with its post-
hearing materials, but this plan was not in place during the relevant time period of April 27,200]..



penalty of$5,000 for its violation ofg 195.505(b).
With respect to Item 8, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $4,500 for Respondent's failure to
have OQ provisions identifoing the re-evaluation intervals for covered tasks in accordance with $
195.505(9). Having a complete OQ program in place to ensure that individuals performing
covered tasks are properly qualified is an important part ofpipeline safety, Respondent's
pipeline system is located in urban and suburban areas and the consequences ofany errors that
cause or contribute to a release from the pipeline could be serious. Respondent has presented no
information that would warrant a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for
this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment cdteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $4,500 for its violation of $ I 95.505(9).
With respect to Item 9.A, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $4,500 for Respondent's failure
to maintain qualification records including the dates of current qualification in accordance with $
195.507. Having a complete OQ program in place to ensure that individuais performing covered
tasks are properly qualified is an important part ofpipeline safety. Violations of recordkeeping
requirements are serious because in the absence of complete and reliable records, neither a
pipeline operator nor OPS can properly evaluate and oversee the effectiveness ofa safety
program. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant a reduction in the civil
penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly, having reviewed the
record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of$4,500 for
its violation of$ 195.507.
With respect to Item 9.D, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,500 for Respondent's failure
to maintain qualification records for contractor individuals who had performed covered tasks on
the pipeline in accordance with $ 195.507. Having a complete OQ program in place to ensure
that individuals performing covered tasks are properly qualified is an important part of pipeline
safety. Violations of recordkeeping requirements are serious because in the absence of complete
and reliable records, neither a pipeline operator nor OPS can properly evaluate and oversee lhe
effectiveness of a safety program. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant
a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Nofice for this violation. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $2,500 for its violation of $ 195.507.
With respect to Item 10, the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $50,000 for Respondent's failure
to have an OQ program in place by April 27 ,2001 in accordance with $ 195.509. Having a
complete OQ program in place to ensure that individuals performing coveied tasks are properly
qualified is an important part of pipeline safety. Respondent's pipeline system is located in
urban and suburban areas and the consequences of any errors that cause or contribute to a release
from the pipeline could be serious. Respondent has presented no information that would warrant
a reduction in the civil penalty amount proposed in the Notice for this violation. Accordingly,
having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil
penalty of $50,000 for its violation of $ 195.509.



Based on the forgoing, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $71 ,500. Respondent has the ability to pay this penalty
without adversely affecting its ability to continue in business.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. $ 89.21 (bX3)) require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $71,500 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. S 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 I l0 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civii penalty
may result in referral of lhe matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United
States District Court.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a Compliance Order specifying actions to be taken by Respondent to
correct the violations. Under 49 U.S.C. $ 601 l8(a), each person who engages in the
transportation ofhazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. The Director,
Southem Region, OPS, has indicated that Respondent has provided documentation
demonstrating that it has now corrected the deficiencies in its OQ program as specified in the
Proposed.Compliance Order. Accordingly, since compliance has been achieved with respect to
these violations, it is unnecessary to include compliance terms in this Order.
Under 49 C.F.R. $ 190.21 5, Respondent has a right to submit a petition for reconsideration of
this Final Order. Should Respondent elect to do so, the petition must be received within 20 days
of Respondent's receipt of this Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s).
The hling of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. However
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
i+(ons of this Final Order are effective on receipt.
nFC - l ,nn.r
I L U I I U
v
o
willk
iate Administrator
for line Safety
Date Issued

220056012_decision on the petition for reconsideration_03312008_text.pdf

U S Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety
Administration
1200 New Jersey Ave S E
Washington DC 20590
M~R3 1 ÃO8
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT RE UES TED
Mr. Robert L. Rose
President
Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation
d/b/a Tampa Bay Pipeline Company
P. O, Box 35236
Sarasota, FL 34242-5236
Re: CPF No. 2-2005-6012
Dear Mr. Rose:
Enclosed is the decision on the petition for reconsideration filed by Tampa Bay Pipeline
Company in the above-referenced case. For the reasons specified therein, the petition is denied.
Payment of the $71, 500 civil penalty is due within 20 days of service. Your receipt of this
decision constitutes service under 49 C. F. R. $ 190. 5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Admmistrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure



U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20590
In the Matter of
Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, )
d/b/a Tampa Bay Pipeline Company, )
)
)
)
)
Petitioner
)
CPF No. 2-2005-6012
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On December 1, 2006, pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60112, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline
Safety issued a Final Order in this case finding that Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, doing
business as Tampa Bay Pipeline Company (Tampa Bay or Petitioner); had committed various
violations of the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations set forth in 49 C. F. R. Part 195. The
Final Order assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $71, 500. By letter dated December 21,
2006, pursuant to 49 C, F. R. ) 190, 215, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration seeking a
reduction or elimination of the civil penalty on the grounds that its payment would constitute a
financial hardship on the company. Petitioner did not request reconsideration of the findings of
violation.
Pursuant to 49 U. S. C. ) 60122 and 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 225, in determining the amount of a civil
penalty, I must consider, among other things, an operator's ability to pay the penalty and any
effect it may have on the operator's ability to continue doing business. An operator requesting
reconsideration of a civil penalty on the grounds that it would constitute a financial hardship has
the burden of demonstrating the validity of its claim.
The petition filed in this case, however, lacked sufficient evidence of Petitioner's actual financial
condition to enable the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to
evaluate Petitioner's claim of financial hardship. Rather than simply denying the petition
without further proceedings, as permitted under 49 C. F. R. ) 190. 215(e), PHMSA requested
Petitioner, by letter dated January 26, 2007, to submit its "most recent financial statement" to
support its claim. In its response dated February 9, 2007, Petitioner indicated that it did not have
separate audited financial information, as the information was contained in a combined statement
and the numbers were not broken out. Instead, Petitioner submitted information concerning
throughput levels on its pipeline system.
By letter dated February 15, 2008, the Office of Chief Counsel again requested that Petitioner
submit accurate and reliable information on the financial condition of Tampa Bay, Specifically,



the letter requested that Tampa Bay provide the most recent auCkted financial statement for
Petitioner, or its parent corporation, or other affiliated entity upon which Tampa Bay relies for
financing. Petitioner was further advised that a failure to provide such information would be
grounds for a denial of its petition. In its response dated March 3, 2008, Petitioner again failed
to submit its most recent audited financial statement. Instead, Petitioner provided a one-page
table showing the income and expenses of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, as of December 31,
2006. Petitioner indicated the numbers in the table were accurate "to the best of [the company's]
knowledge. "
The Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U. S. C. ) 60122, et seq) expressly provide that in
determining civil money penalties, PHMSA must consider a pipeline operator's ability to pay
and whether a proposed penalty will affect an operator's ability to continue doing business. For
a petitioner to assert a successful claim of financial hardship, it must provide PHMSA with the
means by which the agency can accurately determine the company's true financial condition.
This is why the agency requested Petitioner's most recent audited financial statement, which
should provide a current, comprehensive, and reliable picture of the company's financial
condition, including assets, liabilities, income, expenses, and cash flow. PHMSA has twice
given Tampa Bay an opportunity to substantiate its claim of financial hardship but Petitioner has
still failed to produce credible evidence. Therefore, the agency has no alternative but to deny the
petition for reconsideration.
Accordingly, payment in full of the civil penalty assessed in the Final Order ($71, 500) is now
due and must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49 C. F. R. ) 89. 21(b)(3))
require this payment be made by wire transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications
System (Fedwire), to the account of the U. S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the
enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations
Division (AMZ-341), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center,
P. O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $71, 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
tho'se same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6/o) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United
States District Coiut.
This decision on reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
MAR 3 1 N08
Jeffrey D. Wiese
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Date Issued
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 26838