{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220056020","title":"TAMPA AIRPORT PIPELINE CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2005-09-21","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 195.505(f), 195.505(g).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056020.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056020.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220056020","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220056020","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TAMPA AIRPORT PIPELINE CORPORATION. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.505(a),  195.505(b),  195.505(f),  195.505(g). The case was opened on 2005-09-21 and is reported as closed as of 2010-10-07. Proposed civil penalty: $6,000. Assessed civil penalty: $6,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220056020_closure letter_10072010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_closure%20letter_10072010.pdf\n\n220056020_closure letter_10072010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_closure%20letter_10072010_text.pdf\n\n220056020_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_Decision%20onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009.pdf\n\n220056020_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_Decision%20onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009_text.pdf\n\n220056020_Final Order_06292006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_Final%20Order_06292006.pdf\n\n220056020_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009_text.pdf\n\nJUL 28 2009\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Pipeline Corporation\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, Florida 34242\nRe: CPF No. 2-2005-6020\nDear Mr. Rose:\nEnclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration in the above-referenced case. For\nthe reasons specified in the Decision, the Petition is denied. Payment of the $6,000 civil penalty\nis due within 20 days of receipt of this Decision. The findings of the Final Order remain\nunaltered and stand as stated therein. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, OPS, this\nenforcement action will be closed.\nThis Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding. Your receipt of that document\nconstitutes service under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nJeffrey D. Wiese\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert L. Rose (Registered Agent), 4120 Higel Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34242\nLinda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5654]\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, DC 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTampa Pipeline Limited Partnership, ) CPF No. 2-2005-6020\nn/k/a Tampa Pipeline Corporation, )\n)\nPetitioner. )\n____________________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nPROCEDURAL HISTORY\nOn September 21, 2005, the Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety, Southern Region (Director), issued a Notice of Probable\nViolation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Tampa Pipeline\nLimited Partnership (Tampa Pipeline or Petitioner).1\nThe Notice covered Tampa Pipeline’s\n10.5-mile jet fuel line that services Tampa International Airport. In accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Tampa Pipeline had committed certain violations of\n49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed a civil penalty of $6,000 for the alleged violations. Tampa Bay\nreceived the Notice by certified mail but failed to file a written response.\nOn June 29, 2006, pursuant to chapter 601, title 49 United States Code, the Associate\nAdministrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator), PHMSA, issued a Final Order in\nthis case, finding that Tampa Pipeline had committed various violations of the pipeline safety\nregulations, assessing a civil penalty of $6,000, and ordering the company to take certain\ncorrective actions. Petitioner received the Final Order by certified mail at its corporate\nheadquarters on or around July 5, 2006.2\n1 According to the Articles of Merger filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, Tampa Pipeline\nLimited Partnership merged with Tampa Pipeline Corporation on or around September 30, 2001. Tampa Pipeline\nCorporation and its related companies operate pipelines providing jet fuel to various airports: St. Louis Pipeline\nCorporation (St. Louis Pipeline); Illinois Petroleum Supply Corporation (Illinois Petroleum Supply); Illinois\nPipeline Corporation (Illinois Pipeline); Idaho Pipeline Corporation (Idaho Pipeline); Tampa Airport Corporation\n(Tampa Airport Pipeline); San Antonio Pipeline Corporation (San Antonio Pipeline); and Pipelines of Puerto Rico,\nInc. (San Juan Pipeline).\n2 Specifically, Mr. Robert Rose, president of Tampa Pipeline Corporation, signed the U.S. Postal Service Domestic\nReturn Receipt, PS 3811 on or around July 5, 2006.\n\n\n\n2\nOn July 24, 2006, Petitioner sent a letter to the Director requesting clarification of the civil\npenalty. Petitioner stated that it had failed to respond to the Notice since it believed the matter to\nbe closed. In support of its position, Petitioner referred to a letter issued to Tampa Pipeline on\nApril 5, 2006, closing an enforcement action, designated as CPF No. 2-2005-6013M, which had\ncited Tampa Pipeline for inadequate plans and procedures. The closure letter issued by PHMSA\nin that proceeding made no reference to the instant case, designated as CPF No. 2-2005-6020 and\nproposing a compliance order and civil penalty of $6,000.\nIn response to the request for clarification, PHMSA and Tampa Pipeline exchanged various\ncorrespondence, in which the agency explained that the two cases were separate and the closure\nletter for CPF No. 2-2005-6013M had no effect on the ongoing proceedings in this case.\nNevertheless, because Tampa Pipeline had never filed a response in this case and PHMSA\nsought to provide Petitioner with every opportunity to have its claims fully considered, the\nDirector notified the company by letter dated January 19, 2007, that PHMSA would re-open this\nmatter for a period of twenty days to allow Tampa Pipeline to file a Petition for Reconsideration.\nPetitioner subsequently filed its Petition for Reconsideration on February 6, 2007, and\nsupplemented it on November 8, 2007 (Supplement), pursuant to PHMSA approval.\nBased upon a full review of the record in this case and the Petition, I deny Tampa Pipeline’s\nrequest for reconsideration for the reasons set forth more fully below.\nCONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nTampa Pipeline seeks reconsideration of the Final Order in this case partially because the\ncompany failed to file a response to the Notice. Under § 190.215, an operator may file a petition\nfor reconsideration of a final order issued pursuant to § 190.213, requesting that the Associate\nAdministrator reconsider his decision. Although the Associate Administrator does not consider\nrepetitious information, arguments or petitions, an operator may request consideration of\nadditional facts or arguments, provided that the company explains the reason these arguments\noperator to present information or arguments that were unavailable or unknown prior to issuance\nof the final order, as well as to allow the agency to correct any error in the final order, but not to\nprovide an operator with a right of appeal or a de novo review. Although it is unusual to\nwere not presented prior to issuance of the final order.3 The purpose of this rule is to allow an\nentertain a petition for reconsideration when an operator has failed to file a response to the\noriginal Notice, I have made an exception in this case on account of the unique procedural\nhistory outlined above.\nDISCUSSION\nThe Final Order found that Petitioner committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as\nfollows:\n3 49 C.F.R. § 190.215.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 1: That Tampa Pipeline failed to have and follow a written operator qualification\n(OQ) program that identified all “covered tasks” on its pipeline;4\nItem 2: That Tampa Pipeline failed to have and follow an OQ program that ensured\nthrough evaluation that personnel performing “covered tasks” on its pipelines were\nproperly qualified;5\nItem 3: That Tampa Pipeline failed to have and follow an OQ program that\ncommunicated changes in the program to individuals performing the covered tasks;6 and\nItem 4: That Tampa Pipeline failed to have and follow an OQ program that established\nthe necessary reevaluation intervals for personnel initially qualified for covered tasks.\n7\nTampa Pipeline was required to have all four of the Items set forth above in place as part of its\nwritten OQ program that was to be in effect by April 27, 2001.8\nIn its Petition, Tampa Pipeline raises two basic issues. First, it contests the allegations in Item 1.\nAs noted above, the Final Order found that Petitioner failed to have a written qualification\nprogram to identify covered tasks in effect by April 27, 2001, the deadline established by 49\nC.F.R. § 195.509(a). At the time of the inspection, Petitioner produced a blank, undated,\ncovered task certification training sheet instead of a completed written qualification program.\nThe training sheet listed 35 covered tasks but did not provide any further detail regarding the\nqualification program, method of evaluation, etc.9\nIn its Petition, Tampa Pipeline argues that the regulation does not define specific covered tasks.\nThis is correct. However, § 195.501(b) specifically provides that it is the operator’s\nresponsibility to meet the performance standards for an effective operation qualification program\nby assessing its own particular system and operations and identifying covered tasks specific to its\npipeline. Tampa Pipeline was required to evaluate its facilities and list specific covered tasks in\nits written OQ plan. Petitioner failed to demonstrate compliance with this requirement during\nthe 2005 inspection.\n4 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a).\n5 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(b); Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 195.501(b), a covered task is “an activity, identified by the\noperator, that (1) is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) is an operations or maintenance task; (3) is performed as a\nrequirement of this part; and (4) affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline”.\n6 § 195.505(f).\n7 § 195.505(g).\n8 § 195.509(a).\n9 See Exhibit 1 to Violation Report.\n\n\n\n4\nIn addition, Petitioner argues that the company’s OQ Program was inspected in 2001 and that the\nPHMSA inspectors did not object to its content at that time. Therefore, Tampa Pipeline asserts\nthat its OQ program was “accepted” by PHMSA in 2001 and the company should not be\nassessed a civil penalty for a violation discovered four years later during the 2005 inspection.\nPHMSA did perform unit inspections at Petitioner’s facilities in 2001 and 2003. Although a\nportion of the OQ plan might have been reviewed at the time of the unit inspection, the May\n2005 inspection was the first designated Operator Qualification audit of Petitioner’s pipeline\nsystem. Further, Petitioner is required to comply with the pipeline safety regulations at all times\nand to periodically review and modify its OQ program. Therefore, I do not find this argument\npersuasive.\nSecond, Tampa Pipeline presents various arguments why the civil penalty assessed in the Final\nOrder should be reduced or eliminated. Upon review of the entire record in this case, I believe\nthat the civil penalty assessed in the Final Order is appropriate under the factors set forth by 49\nC.F.R. § 190.225. I find Petitioner’s arguments to withdraw the assessed penalty for Items 1, 2,\nand 4 unpersuasive.\nPetitioner argues that since PHMSA had never assessed a civil penalty against Tampa Pipeline in\nthe past, it should not impose one here. Petitioner acknowledges that it has been the company’s\napparent practice to wait for a PHMSA inspector either to advise it of regulatory changes or to\nidentify inadequate procedures prior to amending its own manuals. Specifically, Petitioner states\nthat “… if DOT advises [Tampa Pipeline] that DOT requires different procedures or that the\nlaws or regulations have changed, then [Tampa Pipeline] [is] advised and Tampa Pipeline makes\nthe requested changes.”10\nSuch a “wait-and-see” approach to regulatory compliance has never been endorsed by PHMSA\nand has not served Tampa Pipeline well in this case. Petitioner has an obligation to maintain its\noperations in compliance with the pipeline safety regulations at all times. Petitioner’s pipeline\nprovides jet fuel to the Tampa International Airport in a highly populated area. Having\nunqualified personnel working on the pipeline increases the risk of an accident with potentially\ngrave consequences. Operator qualification is particularly critical in preventing accidents caused\nby judgment error or lack of training. Pipeline operators must continually reassess and modify\ntheir operations, not only to maintain compliance with the regulations but also to avoid risks to\npublic safety and the surrounding environment. Petitioner does not have the luxury of waiting\nfor an OPS inspection to determine whether or not its operations are in compliance.\nPetitioner also argues that a civil penalty should not be assessed for Items 2 or 4 of the Final\nOrder since these violations amounted to an “oversight.\n” Petitioner failed to grade the\nqualification exam for two employees (Item 2) and establish reevaluation intervals (Item 4).\nSince these violations have now been corrected, Tampa Pipeline suggests that the civil penalty\nshould be withdrawn. Post-inspection actions, however, are not grounds for eliminating or\nreducing a civil penalty. Pipeline operators are required to maintain compliance with the\n10 Supplement, at 2.\n\n\n\n5\npipeline safety regulations at all times. At the time of the inspection, Petitioner was in violation\nof the requirements of the pipeline safety regulations and Petitioner has failed to present any\njustification for its noncompliance.\nIn the Petition, the president of Tampa Pipeline Corporation presents a general argument why\ncivil penalties are not appropriate in this case. He states:\nIn my general understanding penalties are an enforcement tool to address\ndeliberate violation of the rules and procedures. At no point did Tampa\nPipeline knowingly disobey the rules, we relied on the fact that the OQ\nprogram of 2001 was accepted by DOT, and on notice of requested changes\nwe promptly made the respected changes.11\nThere is nothing in the statute or regulations, however, to suggest that civil penalties are\ndesigned only to address deliberate violations.12 In fact, 49 U.S.C. § 60122(a) states the\nfollowing:\n(a) General penalties.--(1) A person that the Secretary of Transportation\ndecides, after written notice and an opportunity for a hearing, has violated\nsection 60114(b), 60114(d), or 60118(a) of this title or a regulation prescribed\nor order issued under this chapter is liable to the United States Government\nfor a civil penalty of not more than $100,000 for each violation. A separate\nviolation occurs for each day the violation continues. The maximum civil\npenalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $1,000,000.13\n(emphasis added)\nThe Final Order made findings that Tampa Pipeline was in violation of the stated regulations.\nThe company has not offered any information in its Petition to indicate that any of those findings\nwere in error. Further, upon review of the civil penalty factors, a civil penalty is appropriate for\nthese violations. The fact that Tampa Pipeline’s failure to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations may have not been a deliberate choice bears no relationship to the civil penalty\nassessed in this matter.\nCONCLUSION\nIn conclusion, I affirm the findings of the June 29, 2006 Final Order. Tampa Pipeline has not\nsupplied any new evidence or arguments that warrant a modification or reversal of the findings\n11 Supplement, at 4.\n12 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.\n13 The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA), Pub. L. No. 107-355, § 8(b)(1), 116 Stat. 2992 (emphasis\nadded). PSIA was the governing statute at the time of the inspection. Although the Pipeline Inspection, Protection,\nEnforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act) is the current law, the text of § 60122(a) remains unchanged.\n\n\n\n6\nor the civil penalty assessed. The findings in the Final Order and the terms of the Compliance\nOrder remain in effect. The total civil penalty assessed in this matter is $6,000. It is noteworthy\nthat under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(d), a petition for reconsideration stays the civil penalty assessed\nbut not the required corrective action. To date, PHMSA has not received any information\nindicating that Petitioner has complied with the terms of the Compliance Order. Petitioner must\nimmediately comply with the terms of the Compliance Order.\nThis decision on petition for reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\n__________________________ __________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n220056020_Final Order_06292006.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\n~dminidration\n400 Seventh Street. S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUN 2 9 2006\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Pipeline Limited Partnership\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nRE: CPF NO. 2-2005-6020\nDear Mr. Rose:\nEnclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in\nthe above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $6,000, and\nspecifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment\nterms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty is paid and the terms of the\ncompliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement\naction will be closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes service of that document under\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nSincerely,\nJames Reynolds\nPipeline Compliance Registry\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED\n\n\n\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\nIn the Matter of\nRespondent.\nTampa Pipeline Limited Partnership, CPF No. 2-2005-6020\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 17-1 8,2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5601 17, a team of representatives of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Ofice of Pipeline\nSafety (OPS) conducted an onsite safety inspection of Respondent's Operator Qualification (OQ)\nrecords and procedures at its field office in Tampa, Florida. As a result of the inspection, the\nDirector, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 21, 2005, a\nNotice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).\nIn accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent violated\n49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $6,000 for the alleged violations.\nThe Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.\nRespondent failed to respond within 30 days after it had received the Notice. Respondent's\nfailure to respond constitutes a waiver of Respondent's right to contest the allegations in the\nNotice and authorizes the entry of this Final Order.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\n(Uncontested)\nRespondent did not contest the alleged violations in Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Notice.\nAccordingly, I find that Respondent violated the following sections of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as\nmore fully described in the Notice:\n49 C.F.R. 5195.505(a)-- failure to have and follow a written qualification program with\na completed covered task list at the time that the written Operator Qualification Plan (OQ)\nwas mandated to be in effect, April 27,2001. Respondent failed to identify thirty-five\n(35) covered tasks by April 27,2001. (Item 1)\n49 C.F.R. 5195.505(b)-- failure to have and follow a written qualification program with\nprovisions to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are\nqualified, as written tests were not completed or graded for two employees recorded as\nqualified to perform \"Task ID: 3 1 - Operate Pressure-Relieving Devices for Launching\nand Receiving Facilities.\" (Item 2)\n\n\n\n49 C.F.R. 5 195.505(f)-- failure to have and follow a written qualification program with\nmanagement of change provisions to communicate changes that affect covered tasks to\nindividuals performing those covered tasks; failure to incorporate changes in initial and\nsubsequent evaluations, and failure to communicate the same information to contractors\nsupplying individuals to perform covered tasks. Respondent failed to have a management\nof change section in its written OQ plan. (Item 3)\n49 C.F.R. 5 195.505(g)-- failure to have and follow a written qualification program with\nprovisions to identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the\nindividuals' qualification is needed, as Respondent failed to establish reevaluation\nintervals for covered tasks performed on pipeline system. (Item 4)\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 9 60122, Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 per\nviolation for each day of the violation up to a maximum of $1,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n49 U.S.C. 9 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 190.225 require that, in determining the amount ofthe civil\npenalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\ndegree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability\nto pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on\nRespondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. The\nNotice proposed a total civil penalty of $6,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 55 195.505(a),\n195.505(b), and 195.505(g).\nItem 1 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(a),\nas Respondent failed to have and follow a written qualification program with a completed covered\ntask list by April 27,200 1 ,when the written OQ plan was mandated to be in effect. Respondent\nfailed to identify thirty-five (35) covered tasks by April, 2001. Respondent did not contest the\nviolation or the civil penalty. The allegation of violation is uncontested. Therefore, the facts are\nconsidered admitted as alleged in the Notice and the violations as having been committed.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(a).\nItem 2 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(b),\nas Respondent failed to have and follow a written qualification program with provisions to ensure\nthrough evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified, as written tests were\nnot completed or graded for two employees recorded as qualified to perform \"Task ID: 31 -\nOperate Pressure-Relieving Devices for Launching and Receiving Facilities.\" Respondent did\n\n\n\nnot contest the violation or the civil penalty. The allegation of violation is uncontested.\nTherefore, the facts are considered admitted as alleged in the Notice and the violations as having\nbeen committed. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria,\nI assess Respondent a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation for 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(b).\nItem 4 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(g),\nas Respondent failed to have and follow a written qualification program with established\nreevaluation intervals for covered tasks performed on pipeline system. Respondent did not contest\nthe violation or the civil penalty. The allegation of violation is uncontested. Therefore, the facts\nare considered admitted as alleged in the Notice and the violations as having been committed.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation for 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(g).\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a total civil penalty of $6,000.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by\nsending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to\n\"U.S. Department of Transportation\" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney\nAeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma\nCity, OK 73 125.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. 9 89.21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire\ntransfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the\nU.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK\n73 125; (405) 954-8893.\nFailure to pay the $6,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 3 1 U.S.C. 9 3717,31 C.F.R. 9 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. 9 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment\nis not made within 1 10 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result\nin referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a United States District\nCourt.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1,2,3, and 4 for violations of 49\nC.F.R. 33 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 195.505(f), and 195.505(g).\nUnder 49 U.S.C. 3 601 18(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids\nor who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety\n\n\n\n4\nstandards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 601 18(b) and\n49 C.F.R. § 190.2 17, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance\nwith the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must -\n1. Submit documentation to show that the two employees in question are qualified to\nperform \"Task ID: 3 1 - Operate Pressure-Relieving Devices for Launching and Receiving\nFacilities.\" Complete this item within 30 days of receipt of this Order.\n2. Develop and submit a written qualification program with management change\nprovisions to identify changes that affect covered tasks, that communicate changes that\naffect covered tasks to individuals performing those covered tasks, that incorporate\nchanges in initial and subsequent evaluations, and that communicates the same\ninformation to contractors supplying individuals to perform covered tasks. Complete this\nitem within 30 days of receipt of this Order.\n3. Develop and submit documentation of a written qualification program with provisions\nthat establish reevaluation intervals for covered tasks performed on pipeline system.\nComplete this item within 60 days of receipt of this Order.\n4. Submit documentation of reevaluation of all employees performing covered tasks.\nComplete this item within 120 days of receipt of this Order.\n5. Submit documentation and evidence of completion of these actions to Ms. Linda\nDaugherty, Director, OPS, Southern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration, 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 600, Atlanta, GA 30303.\nThe Director, OPS, Southern Region may grant an extension of time for compliance with any of\nthe terms of this order for good cause. A request for an extension must be in writing and\nadequately justify the reasons for the extension.\nFailure to comply with this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to\n$100,000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.21 5, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this\nFinal Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition\nautomatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order,\nincluding any required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupwequest, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.\nJUN 2 9 2CG6\nDate Issued\nA o iate Administrator\n?$Pipeline Safety\n\n220056020_closure letter_10072010_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nOctober 7, 2010\nMr. Robert Rose\nPresident\nTampa Pipeline Corporation\nP.O. Box 35236\nSarasota, FL 34242\nCPF 2-2005-6020\nDear Mr. Rose:\nOn May 17-18, 2005, a team of representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Southern Region, pursuant\nto Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an inspection of the Tampa Airport\nPipeline Corporation's (TAPC's) Operator Qualification (OQ) program. The inspection was\nconducted in Tampa, Florida, and covered the TAPC pipeline in Hillsborough County,\nFlorida.\nAs a result of the inspection, PHMSA issued a Final Order on June 29, 2006. The Final Order\nincluded a Compliance Order (CO), which required TAPC to take certain actions to protect\nthe public and the environment. This letter is to inform you that TAPC has complied with the\nterms of the CO. No further action is necessary with regards to the CO and this case is now\nclosed.\nPlease be advised that there may be other PHMSA cases pending with regards to the above\nreferenced pipeline system and that this letter refers only to the above referenced Final Order\nand Compliance Order (re: CPF 2-2005-6020) and not to any other PHMSA pending cases.\nAlso be advised that nothing herein states or implies that the above described OQ program\nmeets the requirements of the federal pipeline safety regulations or that the OQ program is\napproved. The pipeline system and OQ program remain subject to inspection by PHMSA.\nSincerely,\nWayne T. Lemoi\nDirector, PHMSA Southern Region\nOffice of Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":30639}