# AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 220130021
- **title:** AMERIGAS PROPANE LP — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2013-06-20
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.457, 192.723, 192.739, 192.747.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130021.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130021.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220130021
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220130021
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving AMERIGAS PROPANE LP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.457,  192.723,  192.739,  192.747. The case was opened on 2013-06-20 and is reported as closed as of 2014-09-23. Proposed civil penalty: $33,700. Assessed civil penalty: $24,950. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

220130021_closure letter_09232014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130021/220130021_closure%20letter_09232014.pdf

220130021_closure Letter_09232014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130021/220130021_closure%20Letter_09232014_text.pdf

220130021_Final Order_06302014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130021/220130021_Final%20Order_06302014.pdf

220130021_Final Order_06302014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130021/220130021_Final%20Order_06302014_text.pdf

220130021_NOPV_ PCP_CO_06202013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130021/220130021_NOPV_%20PCP_CO_06202013_text.pdf

220130021_nopv_pcp_pco_06202013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130021/220130021_nopv_pcp_pco_06202013.pdf

220130021_Operator Response_07192013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220130021/220130021_Operator%20Response_07192013.pdf

220130021_Final Order_06302014_text.pdf

JUNE 30, 2014
Mr. Jerry E. Sheridan
President and Chief Executive Officer
AmeriGas Partners, LP
460 North Gulph Road
Valley Forge, PA 19482
Re: CPF No. 2-2013-0021
Dear Mr. Sheridan:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $24,950, and specifies actions that need to be taken
by AmeriGas Propane, LP, 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 have been completed, as determined by the Director, Southern 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. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, OPS
Ms. Linda Daugherty, Deputy Associate Administrator for Field Operations, OPS
Mr. Paul Grady, VP and COO, AmeriGas Propane, LP
Mr. Edward Boden, Safety and Technology Engineer, AmeriGas Propane, LP
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 )
)
AmeriGas Propane, LP, ) CPF No. 2-2013-0021
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On April 8-12, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of AmeriGas
Propane, LP (AmeriGas or Respondent), in Broward County, Florida, and Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. AmeriGas is a subsidiary of AmeriGas Partners, LP, a publicly traded master limited
partnership that distributes propane throughout the United States.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated June 20, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to
49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
AmeriGas had committed various violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 192 and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $33,700 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to
take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further
action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face future potential
enforcement action.
AmeriGas responded to the Notice by letter dated July 19, 2013 (Response). The company
contested one of the allegations and offered additional information in response to the Notice.
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 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.723, which states in
relevant part:
1 http://investors.amerigas.com/investor-relations/ir-home/default.aspx (last accessed January 17, 2014).



2
§ 192.723 Distribution systems: Leakage surveys.
(a) Each operator of a distribution system shall conduct periodic
leakage surveys in accordance with this section.
(b) The type and scope of the leakage control program must be
determined by the nature of the operations and the local conditions, but it
must meet the following minimum requirements:
(1) . . . .
(2) A leakage survey with leak detector equipment must be conducted
outside business districts as frequently as necessary, but at least once
every 5 calendar years at intervals not exceeding 63 months. However, for
cathodically unprotected distribution lines subject to § 192.465(e) on
which electrical surveys for corrosion are impractical, a leakage survey
must be conducted at least once every 3 calendar years at intervals not
exceeding 39 months.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.723 by failing to conduct a leakage
survey with leak detector equipment as frequently as necessary, but at least once every five
calendar years at intervals not exceeding 63 months. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, during
the inspection, AmeriGas failed to provide documentation that it conducted a leakage survey of
the Pleasant Ridge distribution system in Deerfield Beach, FL from 2007-2012.
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. § 192.723 by failing to conduct a leakage survey with leak detector equipment as
frequently as necessary, but at least once every five calendar years at intervals not exceeding 63
months.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739, which states in
relevant part:
§ 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;
(2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of
operation for the service in which it is employed;
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to control or
relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure limits of
§ 192.201(a); and
(4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other
conditions that might prevent proper operation.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.739 by failing to inspect and test



3
each pressure regulating station and its equipment at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at
least once each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that AmeriGas failed to provide
documentation to show it had inspected four LPG distribution systems in calendar year 2012.2
In its Response, AmeriGas argued that, while § 192.739 requires testing, NFPA 58/59 simply
requires that the regulators cited in the Notice be approved according to ANSI/UL 144, Standard
for LP Gas Regulators. Because § 192.11(c) states that “in the event of a conflict between this
part and ANSI/NFPA 58 and 59 [the latter prevails],” AmeriGas argued that it was not required
to inspect these regulators.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “conflict”3 as “a competitive or opposing
action of incompatibles.” In deciding whether the § 192.739 testing requirement is
“incompatible” with NFPA 58/59, I have considered whether the regulation and the standard are
incapable of reconciliation. Since nothing in either text would impede AmeriGas from
complying with both the standard and the regulation at the same time, I find that there is no
conflict between § 192.739 and NFPA 58/59 regarding the inspection and testing of pressure
regulating stations.
In its defense, AmeriGas cited a PHMSA Final Order that withdrew a similar allegation of
violation and regarded a “conflict” between Part 192 and NFPA 58/59 as a circumstance where
the former required testing and the latter did not. However, in a more recent case involving
AmeriGas, PHMSA held that an operator was required to comply with both NFPA 58/59 and
Part 192 when the operator was capable of complying with both requirements.4 Insofar as the
Respondent has failed to claim either “impossibility” or “impracticability,” I find that AmeriGas
was required to conduct these inspections pursuant to § 192.739.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.739 by failing to inspect and test each pressure regulating station and its equipment at
intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
2 AmeriGas failed to provide documentation that the following distribution systems were subjected to inspection
and testing: (1) Brentwood #1 – 8, 11-19; Pleasant Ridge, Deerfield Beach; Madison Apartments, Fort Lauderdale;
and Sunshine Plaza, Tamarac. Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), June 20, 2013 (on file with
PHMSA), at 11.
3 http://www merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict.
4 An operator may only claim a conflict between the requirements of NFPA 58 and Part 192 where “the possibility
of conflict would arise if it were impossible or impracticable to comply with both.” In the Matter of AmeriGas
Propane, L.P., Final Order C.P.F. No. 3-2006-0004 (April 15, 2009) (available at
www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).



4
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.5 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; 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 $33,700 for the violations cited above.
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $16,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.723, for failing to conduct a leakage survey with leak detector equipment as frequently as
necessary, but at least once every five calendar years at intervals not exceeding 63 months.
AmeriGas neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying a
modification of the proposed penalty. Leakage surveys provide invaluable information to
operators about their systems, and if conducted regularly, can reduce product releases and other
negative consequences. 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. § 192.723.
Item 3: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $17,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.739, for failing to inspect and test each pressure regulating station and its equipment at
certain intervals. Above, I rejected AmeriGas’ argument that it was not required to conduct these
inspections. In considering the proposed penalty, the noncompliance affected a number of LPG
distribution systems. In addition, Respondent was assessed a penalty for failure to inspect
regulators on April 16, 2009.6 The Respondent did not contest the violation at the time and
therefore I find it dubious that Respondent relied on the 1998 Final Order in making its decision
that it was not required to comply with § 192.739. Nevertheless, since the case cited by the
Respondent is relevant to the situation here, I find that the Respondent had some reasoned basis
for failing to comply with the regulation and warrants a penalty reduction. Notwithstanding this
penalty reduction, the holding of the 1998 Final Order was erroneous when made, and therefore
should not be used as a future basis for avoiding compliance with Part 192.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $8,750 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.739.
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $24,950.
5 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.
1904, January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to $200,000 per
violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.
6 In the Matter of AmeriGas Propane (AmeriGas), Final Order, C.P.F. No. 3-2006-0004 (Aug. 9, 2009) (available at
www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).



5
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations
(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The
Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
Failure to pay the $24,950 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 3 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.723 and 192.739, respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each
person who engages in the transportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is
required to comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant
to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take
the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its
operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 192.723 (Item 2), Respondent must conduct a
leakage survey with leak detector equipment of its Pleasant Ridge LPG distribution
system in Deerfield Beach, FL, and prepare records to document the leakage survey
within 90 days after receipt of this Final Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 192.739 (Item 3), Respondent must inspect and
test each pressure limiting station, relief device (except rupture discs), and pressure
regulating station and its equipment in accordance with § 192.739, and prepare
records to document the tests and inspections within 90 days after receipt of this Final
Order.
3. PHMSA requests that AmeriGas maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the
total to the Director, Southern Region. The costs should be reported in two
categories: (1) total costs associated with preparation and revision of plans,
procedures, studies, and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with replacements,
additions, and other changes to the pipeline infrastructure.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.



6
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the
Attorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192 but did not
propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to
be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.457 (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide records
to demonstrate that approximately two miles of 0.75-1 inch diameter coated steel
pipeline was cathodically protected or that these lines had no areas of active
corrosion; and
49 C.F.R. § 192.747 (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to document that it
checked and serviced each valve which might be necessary for the safe operation
of its distribution system, at intervals not exceeding 15 months but at least once
each calendar year.
AmeriGas presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to
address the cited items. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection,
Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of
this Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline
Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA
will accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by
the Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other
requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of
any civil penalty assessed. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay, all
other terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
___________________________________ __________________________
Jeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

220130021_closure Letter_09232014_text.pdf

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
September 23, 2014
Mr. Jerry E. Sheridan
President and Chief Operating Officer
AmeriGas Propane, LP
460 North Gulph Road
Valley Forge, PA 19482
CPF 2-2013-0021
Dear Mr. Sheridan:
On June 30, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) issued AmeriGas Propane, LP (AmeriGas) a Final Order with
an attached Compliance Order (CO) in the above-referenced case. The CO required AmeriGas
to undertake certain actions to ensure compliance with the federal pipeline safety regulations.
The OPS Southern Region received and reviewed AmeriGas’ responses to the CO dated
September 3, 2014, and September 16, 2014. Based on our review of the actions taken by
AmeriGas and the supporting documentation we have determined that AmeriGas has
complied with the terms of the CO and the Final Order.
This case is now closed and no further action is necessary with respect to the matters involved
in this case.
Please be advised that this letter refers only to the above referenced order (CPF 2-2013-0021)
and not to any other PHMSA cases, if any.
Sincerely,
Wayne T. Lemoi
Director, Office of Pipeline Safety
PHMSA Southern Region
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 20726