# TAMPA AIRPORT PIPELINE CORPORATION — Notice of Probable Violation

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

220056020_closure letter_10072010.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_closure%20letter_10072010.pdf

220056020_closure letter_10072010_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_closure%20letter_10072010_text.pdf

220056020_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_Decision%20onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009.pdf

220056020_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_Decision%20onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009_text.pdf

220056020_Final Order_06292006.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220056020/220056020_Final%20Order_06292006.pdf

220056020_Decision onPetitionforReconsideration_07282009_text.pdf

JUL 28 2009
Mr. Robert L. Rose
President
Tampa Pipeline Corporation
P.O. Box 35236
Sarasota, Florida 34242
Re: CPF No. 2-2005-6020
Dear Mr. Rose:
Enclosed is the Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration in the above-referenced case. For
the reasons specified in the Decision, the Petition is denied. Payment of the $6,000 civil penalty
is due within 20 days of receipt of this Decision. The findings of the Final Order remain
unaltered and stand as stated therein. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, OPS, this
enforcement action will be closed.
This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding. Your receipt of that document
constitutes service 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. Robert L. Rose (Registered Agent), 4120 Higel Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34242
Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED [7005 0390 0005 6162 5654]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
)
Tampa Pipeline Limited Partnership, ) CPF No. 2-2005-6020
n/k/a Tampa Pipeline Corporation, )
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 21, 2005, the Director, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety, Southern Region (Director), issued a Notice of Probable
Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice) to Tampa Pipeline
Limited Partnership (Tampa Pipeline or Petitioner).1
The Notice covered Tampa Pipeline’s
10.5-mile jet fuel line that services Tampa International Airport. In accordance with 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Tampa Pipeline had committed certain violations of
49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed a civil penalty of $6,000 for the alleged violations. Tampa Bay
received the Notice by certified mail but failed to file a written response.
On June 29, 2006, pursuant to chapter 601, title 49 United States Code, the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator), PHMSA, issued a Final Order in
this case, finding that Tampa Pipeline had committed various violations of the pipeline safety
regulations, assessing a civil penalty of $6,000, and ordering the company to take certain
corrective actions. Petitioner received the Final Order by certified mail at its corporate
headquarters on or around July 5, 2006.2
1 According to the Articles of Merger filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, Tampa Pipeline
Limited Partnership merged with Tampa Pipeline Corporation on or around September 30, 2001. Tampa Pipeline
Corporation and its related companies operate pipelines providing jet fuel to various airports: St. Louis Pipeline
Corporation (St. Louis Pipeline); Illinois Petroleum Supply Corporation (Illinois Petroleum Supply); Illinois
Pipeline Corporation (Illinois Pipeline); Idaho Pipeline Corporation (Idaho Pipeline); Tampa Airport Corporation
(Tampa Airport Pipeline); San Antonio Pipeline Corporation (San Antonio Pipeline); and Pipelines of Puerto Rico,
Inc. (San Juan Pipeline).
2 Specifically, Mr. Robert Rose, president of Tampa Pipeline Corporation, signed the U.S. Postal Service Domestic
Return Receipt, PS 3811 on or around July 5, 2006.



2
On July 24, 2006, Petitioner sent a letter to the Director requesting clarification of the civil
penalty. Petitioner stated that it had failed to respond to the Notice since it believed the matter to
be closed. In support of its position, Petitioner referred to a letter issued to Tampa Pipeline on
April 5, 2006, closing an enforcement action, designated as CPF No. 2-2005-6013M, which had
cited Tampa Pipeline for inadequate plans and procedures. The closure letter issued by PHMSA
in that proceeding made no reference to the instant case, designated as CPF No. 2-2005-6020 and
proposing a compliance order and civil penalty of $6,000.
In response to the request for clarification, PHMSA and Tampa Pipeline exchanged various
correspondence, in which the agency explained that the two cases were separate and the closure
letter for CPF No. 2-2005-6013M had no effect on the ongoing proceedings in this case.
Nevertheless, because Tampa Pipeline had never filed a response in this case and PHMSA
sought to provide Petitioner with every opportunity to have its claims fully considered, the
Director notified the company by letter dated January 19, 2007, that PHMSA would re-open this
matter for a period of twenty days to allow Tampa Pipeline to file a Petition for Reconsideration.
Petitioner subsequently filed its Petition for Reconsideration on February 6, 2007, and
supplemented it on November 8, 2007 (Supplement), pursuant to PHMSA approval.
Based upon a full review of the record in this case and the Petition, I deny Tampa Pipeline’s
request for reconsideration for the reasons set forth more fully below.
CONSIDERATION OF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Tampa Pipeline seeks reconsideration of the Final Order in this case partially because the
company failed to file a response to the Notice. Under § 190.215, an operator may file a petition
for reconsideration of a final order issued pursuant to § 190.213, requesting that the Associate
Administrator reconsider his decision. Although the Associate Administrator does not consider
repetitious information, arguments or petitions, an operator may request consideration of
additional facts or arguments, provided that the company explains the reason these arguments
operator to present information or arguments that were unavailable or unknown prior to issuance
of the final order, as well as to allow the agency to correct any error in the final order, but not to
provide an operator with a right of appeal or a de novo review. Although it is unusual to
were not presented prior to issuance of the final order.3 The purpose of this rule is to allow an
entertain a petition for reconsideration when an operator has failed to file a response to the
original Notice, I have made an exception in this case on account of the unique procedural
history outlined above.
DISCUSSION
The Final Order found that Petitioner committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as
follows:
3 49 C.F.R. § 190.215.



3
Item 1: That Tampa Pipeline failed to have and follow a written operator qualification
(OQ) program that identified all “covered tasks” on its pipeline;4
Item 2: That Tampa Pipeline failed to have and follow an OQ program that ensured
through evaluation that personnel performing “covered tasks” on its pipelines were
properly qualified;5
Item 3: That Tampa Pipeline failed to have and follow an OQ program that
communicated changes in the program to individuals performing the covered tasks;6 and
Item 4: That Tampa Pipeline failed to have and follow an OQ program that established
the necessary reevaluation intervals for personnel initially qualified for covered tasks.
7
Tampa Pipeline was required to have all four of the Items set forth above in place as part of its
written OQ program that was to be in effect by April 27, 2001.8
In its Petition, Tampa Pipeline raises two basic issues. First, it contests the allegations in Item 1.
As noted above, the Final Order found that Petitioner failed to have a written qualification
program to identify covered tasks in effect by April 27, 2001, the deadline established by 49
C.F.R. § 195.509(a). At the time of the inspection, Petitioner produced a blank, undated,
covered task certification training sheet instead of a completed written qualification program.
The training sheet listed 35 covered tasks but did not provide any further detail regarding the
qualification program, method of evaluation, etc.9
In its Petition, Tampa Pipeline argues that the regulation does not define specific covered tasks.
This is correct. However, § 195.501(b) specifically provides that it is the operator’s
responsibility to meet the performance standards for an effective operation qualification program
by assessing its own particular system and operations and identifying covered tasks specific to its
pipeline. Tampa Pipeline was required to evaluate its facilities and list specific covered tasks in
its written OQ plan. Petitioner failed to demonstrate compliance with this requirement during
the 2005 inspection.
4 49 C.F.R. § 195.505(a).
5 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
operator, that (1) is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) is an operations or maintenance task; (3) is performed as a
requirement of this part; and (4) affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline”.
6 § 195.505(f).
7 § 195.505(g).
8 § 195.509(a).
9 See Exhibit 1 to Violation Report.



4
In addition, Petitioner argues that the company’s OQ Program was inspected in 2001 and that the
PHMSA inspectors did not object to its content at that time. Therefore, Tampa Pipeline asserts
that its OQ program was “accepted” by PHMSA in 2001 and the company should not be
assessed a civil penalty for a violation discovered four years later during the 2005 inspection.
PHMSA did perform unit inspections at Petitioner’s facilities in 2001 and 2003. Although a
portion of the OQ plan might have been reviewed at the time of the unit inspection, the May
2005 inspection was the first designated Operator Qualification audit of Petitioner’s pipeline
system. Further, Petitioner is required to comply with the pipeline safety regulations at all times
and to periodically review and modify its OQ program. Therefore, I do not find this argument
persuasive.
Second, Tampa Pipeline presents various arguments why the civil penalty assessed in the Final
Order should be reduced or eliminated. Upon review of the entire record in this case, I believe
that the civil penalty assessed in the Final Order is appropriate under the factors set forth by 49
C.F.R. § 190.225. I find Petitioner’s arguments to withdraw the assessed penalty for Items 1, 2,
and 4 unpersuasive.
Petitioner argues that since PHMSA had never assessed a civil penalty against Tampa Pipeline in
the past, it should not impose one here. Petitioner acknowledges that it has been the company’s
apparent practice to wait for a PHMSA inspector either to advise it of regulatory changes or to
identify inadequate procedures prior to amending its own manuals. Specifically, Petitioner states
that “… if DOT advises [Tampa Pipeline] that DOT requires different procedures or that the
laws or regulations have changed, then [Tampa Pipeline] [is] advised and Tampa Pipeline makes
the requested changes.”10
Such a “wait-and-see” approach to regulatory compliance has never been endorsed by PHMSA
and has not served Tampa Pipeline well in this case. Petitioner has an obligation to maintain its
operations in compliance with the pipeline safety regulations at all times. Petitioner’s pipeline
provides jet fuel to the Tampa International Airport in a highly populated area. Having
unqualified personnel working on the pipeline increases the risk of an accident with potentially
grave consequences. Operator qualification is particularly critical in preventing accidents caused
by judgment error or lack of training. Pipeline operators must continually reassess and modify
their operations, not only to maintain compliance with the regulations but also to avoid risks to
public safety and the surrounding environment. Petitioner does not have the luxury of waiting
for an OPS inspection to determine whether or not its operations are in compliance.
Petitioner also argues that a civil penalty should not be assessed for Items 2 or 4 of the Final
Order since these violations amounted to an “oversight.
” Petitioner failed to grade the
qualification exam for two employees (Item 2) and establish reevaluation intervals (Item 4).
Since these violations have now been corrected, Tampa Pipeline suggests that the civil penalty
should be withdrawn. Post-inspection actions, however, are not grounds for eliminating or
reducing a civil penalty. Pipeline operators are required to maintain compliance with the
10 Supplement, at 2.



5
pipeline safety regulations at all times. At the time of the inspection, Petitioner was in violation
of the requirements of the pipeline safety regulations and Petitioner has failed to present any
justification for its noncompliance.
In the Petition, the president of Tampa Pipeline Corporation presents a general argument why
civil penalties are not appropriate in this case. He states:
In my general understanding penalties are an enforcement tool to address
deliberate violation of the rules and procedures. At no point did Tampa
Pipeline knowingly disobey the rules, we relied on the fact that the OQ
program of 2001 was accepted by DOT, and on notice of requested changes
we promptly made the respected changes.11
There is nothing in the statute or regulations, however, to suggest that civil penalties are
designed only to address deliberate violations.12 In fact, 49 U.S.C. § 60122(a) states the
following:
(a) General penalties.--(1) A person that the Secretary of Transportation
decides, after written notice and an opportunity for a hearing, has violated
section 60114(b), 60114(d), or 60118(a) of this title or a regulation prescribed
or order issued under this chapter is liable to the United States Government
for a civil penalty of not more than $100,000 for each violation. A separate
violation occurs for each day the violation continues. The maximum civil
penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $1,000,000.13
(emphasis added)
The Final Order made findings that Tampa Pipeline was in violation of the stated regulations.
The company has not offered any information in its Petition to indicate that any of those findings
were in error. Further, upon review of the civil penalty factors, a civil penalty is appropriate for
these violations. The fact that Tampa Pipeline’s failure to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations may have not been a deliberate choice bears no relationship to the civil penalty
assessed in this matter.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I affirm the findings of the June 29, 2006 Final Order. Tampa Pipeline has not
supplied any new evidence or arguments that warrant a modification or reversal of the findings
11 Supplement, at 4.
12 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
13 The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA), Pub. L. No. 107-355, § 8(b)(1), 116 Stat. 2992 (emphasis
added). PSIA was the governing statute at the time of the inspection. Although the Pipeline Inspection, Protection,
Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act) is the current law, the text of § 60122(a) remains unchanged.



6
or the civil penalty assessed. The findings in the Final Order and the terms of the Compliance
Order remain in effect. The total civil penalty assessed in this matter is $6,000. It is noteworthy
that under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215(d), a petition for reconsideration stays the civil penalty assessed
but not the required corrective action. To date, PHMSA has not received any information
indicating that Petitioner has complied with the terms of the Compliance Order. Petitioner must
immediately comply with the terms of the Compliance Order.
This decision on petition for reconsideration is the final administrative action in this proceeding.
__________________________ __________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

220056020_Final Order_06292006.pdf

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
~dminidration
400 Seventh Street. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
JUN 2 9 2006
Mr. Robert L. Rose
President
Tampa Pipeline Limited Partnership
P.O. Box 35236
Sarasota, FL 34242
RE: CPF NO. 2-2005-6020
Dear Mr. Rose:
Enclosed is the Final Order issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety in
the above-referenced case. It makes findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $6,000, and
specifies actions to be taken to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment
terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty is paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Southern Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Your receipt of this Final Order constitutes service of that document under
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Sincerely,
James Reynolds
Pipeline Compliance Registry
Office of Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Linda Daugherty, Director, Southern Region, OPS
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
In the Matter of
Respondent.
Tampa Pipeline Limited Partnership, CPF No. 2-2005-6020
FINAL ORDER
On May 17-1 8,2005, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5601 17, a team of representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Southern Region, Ofice of Pipeline
Safety (OPS) conducted an onsite safety inspection of Respondent's Operator Qualification (OQ)
records and procedures at its field office in Tampa, Florida. As a result of the inspection, the
Director, Southern Region, OPS, issued to Respondent, by letter dated September 21, 2005, a
Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice).
In accordance with 49 C.F.R. 5 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Respondent violated
49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $6,000 for the alleged violations.
The Notice also proposed that Respondent take certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Respondent failed to respond within 30 days after it had received the Notice. Respondent's
failure to respond constitutes a waiver of Respondent's right to contest the allegations in the
Notice and authorizes the entry of this Final Order.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
(Uncontested)
Respondent did not contest the alleged violations in Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Notice.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated the following sections of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as
more fully described in the Notice:
49 C.F.R. 5195.505(a)-- failure to have and follow a written qualification program with
a completed covered task list at the time that the written Operator Qualification Plan (OQ)
was mandated to be in effect, April 27,2001. Respondent failed to identify thirty-five
(35) covered tasks by April 27,2001. (Item 1)
49 C.F.R. 5195.505(b)-- failure to have and follow a written qualification program with
provisions to ensure through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are
qualified, as written tests were not completed or graded for two employees recorded as
qualified to perform "Task ID: 3 1 - Operate Pressure-Relieving Devices for Launching
and Receiving Facilities." (Item 2)



49 C.F.R. 5 195.505(f)-- failure to have and follow a written qualification program with
management of change provisions to communicate changes that affect covered tasks to
individuals performing those covered tasks; failure to incorporate changes in initial and
subsequent evaluations, and failure to communicate the same information to contractors
supplying individuals to perform covered tasks. Respondent failed to have a management
of change section in its written OQ plan. (Item 3)
49 C.F.R. 5 195.505(g)-- failure to have and follow a written qualification program with
provisions to identify those covered tasks and the intervals at which evaluation of the
individuals' qualification is needed, as Respondent failed to establish reevaluation
intervals for covered tasks performed on pipeline system. (Item 4)
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. 9 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. 9 60122 and 49 C.F.R. 190.225 require that, in determining the amount ofthe civil
penalty, I consider the following criteria: nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,
degree of Respondent's culpability, history of Respondent's prior offenses, Respondent's ability
to pay the penalty, good faith by Respondent in attempting to achieve compliance, the effect on
Respondent's ability to continue in business, and such other matters as justice may require. The
Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $6,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 55 195.505(a),
195.505(b), and 195.505(g).
Item 1 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(a),
as Respondent failed to have and follow a written qualification program with a completed covered
task list by April 27,200 1 ,when the written OQ plan was mandated to be in effect. Respondent
failed to identify thirty-five (35) covered tasks by April, 2001. Respondent did not contest the
violation or the civil penalty. The allegation of violation is uncontested. Therefore, the facts are
considered admitted as alleged in the Notice and the violations as having been committed.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(a).
Item 2 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(b),
as Respondent failed to have and follow a written qualification program with provisions to ensure
through evaluation that individuals performing covered tasks are qualified, as written tests were
not completed or graded for two employees recorded as qualified to perform "Task ID: 31 -
Operate Pressure-Relieving Devices for Launching and Receiving Facilities." Respondent did



not contest the violation or the civil penalty. The allegation of violation is uncontested.
Therefore, the facts are considered admitted as alleged in the Notice and the violations as having
been committed. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria,
I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation for 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(b).
Item 4 of the Notice proposed a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(g),
as Respondent failed to have and follow a written qualification program with established
reevaluation intervals for covered tasks performed on pipeline system. Respondent did not contest
the violation or the civil penalty. The allegation of violation is uncontested. Therefore, the facts
are considered admitted as alleged in the Notice and the violations as having been committed.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $2,000 for violation for 49 C.F.R. 9 195.505(g).
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a total civil penalty of $6,000.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Payment may be made by
sending a certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this case) payable to
"U.S. Department of Transportation" to the Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney
Aeronautical Center, Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma
City, OK 73 125.
Federal regulations (49 C.F.R. 9 89.21(b)(3)) also permit this payment to be made by wire
transfer, through the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the
U.S. Treasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire
transfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMZ-300), Federal Aviation
Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK
73 125; (405) 954-8893.
Failure to pay the $6,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in 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
same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment
is not made within 1 10 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
Court.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1,2,3, and 4 for violations of 49
C.F.R. 33 195.505(a), 195.505(b), 195.505(f), and 195.505(g).
Under 49 U.S.C. 3 601 18(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids
or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety



4
standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 601 18(b) and
49 C.F.R. § 190.2 17, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance
with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations. Respondent must -
1. Submit documentation to show that the two employees in question are qualified to
perform "Task ID: 3 1 - Operate Pressure-Relieving Devices for Launching and Receiving
Facilities." Complete this item within 30 days of receipt of this Order.
2. Develop and submit a written qualification program with management change
provisions to identify changes that affect covered tasks, that communicate changes that
affect covered tasks to individuals performing those covered tasks, that incorporate
changes in initial and subsequent evaluations, and that communicates the same
information to contractors supplying individuals to perform covered tasks. Complete this
item within 30 days of receipt of this Order.
3. Develop and submit documentation of a written qualification program with provisions
that establish reevaluation intervals for covered tasks performed on pipeline system.
Complete this item within 60 days of receipt of this Order.
4. Submit documentation of reevaluation of all employees performing covered tasks.
Complete this item within 120 days of receipt of this Order.
5. Submit documentation and evidence of completion of these actions to Ms. Linda
Daugherty, Director, OPS, Southern Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 233 Peachtree Street, Suite 600, Atlanta, GA 30303.
The Director, OPS, Southern Region may grant an extension of time for compliance with any of
the terms of this order for good cause. A request for an extension must be in writing and
adequately justify the reasons for the extension.
Failure to comply with this Final Order may result in the assessment of civil penalties of up to
$100,000 per violation per day, or in the referral of the case for judicial enforcement.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.21 5, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be received within 20 days of Respondent's receipt of this
Final Order and must contain a brief statement of the issue(s). The filing of the petition
automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. All other terms of the order,
including any required corrective action, remain in full effect unless the Associate Administrator,
upwequest, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective on receipt.
JUN 2 9 2CG6
Date Issued
A o iate Administrator
?$Pipeline Safety

220056020_closure letter_10072010_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
October 7, 2010
Mr. Robert Rose
President
Tampa Pipeline Corporation
P.O. Box 35236
Sarasota, FL 34242
CPF 2-2005-6020
Dear Mr. Rose:
On May 17-18, 2005, a team of representatives from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Southern Region, pursuant
to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code, conducted an inspection of the Tampa Airport
Pipeline Corporation's (TAPC's) Operator Qualification (OQ) program. The inspection was
conducted in Tampa, Florida, and covered the TAPC pipeline in Hillsborough County,
Florida.
As a result of the inspection, PHMSA issued a Final Order on June 29, 2006. The Final Order
included a Compliance Order (CO), which required TAPC to take certain actions to protect
the public and the environment. This letter is to inform you that TAPC has complied with the
terms of the CO. No further action is necessary with regards to the CO and this case is now
closed.
Please be advised that there may be other PHMSA cases pending with regards to the above
referenced pipeline system and that this letter refers only to the above referenced Final Order
and Compliance Order (re: CPF 2-2005-6020) and not to any other PHMSA pending cases.
Also be advised that nothing herein states or implies that the above described OQ program
meets the requirements of the federal pipeline safety regulations or that the OQ program is
approved. The pipeline system and OQ program remain subject to inspection by PHMSA.
Sincerely,
Wayne T. Lemoi
Director, PHMSA Southern Region
Office of Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 30639