{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 220136009","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":"2013-09-10","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.446(a), 195.446(d)(4).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136009.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136009.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-220136009","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/220136009","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TAMPA BAY PIPELINE CO.. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.446(a),  195.446(d)(4). The case was opened on 2013-09-10 and is reported as closed as of 2014-11-17. Proposed civil penalty: $55,300. Assessed civil penalty: $55,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n220136009_Final Order_09292014.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136009/220136009_Final%20Order_09292014.pdf\n\n220136009_Final Order_09292014_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136009/220136009_Final%20Order_09292014_text.pdf\n\n220136009_nopv_pcp_09102013.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136009/220136009_nopv_pcp_09102013.pdf\n\n220136009_nopv_pcp_09102013_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/220136009/220136009_nopv_pcp_09102013_text.pdf\n\n220136009_Final Order_09292014_text.pdf\n\nSEPTEMBER 29, 2014\nMr. Robert L. Rose\nPresident\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company\nP. O. Box 35236\nSarasota, Florida 34242\nRe: CPF No. 2-2013-6009\nDear Mr. Rose:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $55,300. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the\nFinal Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of\nthe Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise\nprovided 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. Wayne T. Lemoi, Director, Southern Region, OPS\nMr. Robert L. Rose, President, Tampa Bay Pipeline Company, 5802 Hartford Street,\nTampa, FL 33619\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nTampa Bay Pipeline Company, ) CPF No. 2-2013-6009\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn May 13-17, 2013, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),\nconducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Tampa Bay\nPipeline Company (TBPC or Respondent) in Tampa Bay, Florida. TBPC operates a 101.1-mile\nanhydrous ammonia intrastate pipeline system that transports product from the Port of Tampa to\nvarious industrial users in the Tampa area.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 10, 2013, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCivil Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding\nthat TBPC had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446 and assessing a civil penalty of\n$55,300 for the alleged violations.\nRespondent failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of service of the Notice. Under 49 C.F.R.\n§ 190.209(c),2 such failure to respond constitutes a waiver of TBPC’s right to contest the\nallegations in the Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator, without further notice, to\nfind facts as alleged in the Notice and to issue this Final Order under § 190.213. In this case, the\nNotice was mailed to Respondent by certified mail (USPS Article No. 7011 2000 0001 0088\n3076) on September 10, 2013, and was received by Respondent on September 13, 2013, as\nshown by the return receipt on file with PHMSA. To date, Respondent has never acknowledged\nor responded to the Notice. Under such circumstances, I find it reasonable and appropriate to\nenter this Final Order without further proceedings.3\n1 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (September 10, 2013) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n2 Effective October 25, 2013, this section has been recodified as 49 C.F.R. § 190.208.\n3 For other proceedings against Respondent and its affiliates, See, e.g., In the Matter of Tampa Pipeline\nCorporation, Final Order (CPF No. 2-2008-6002] (April 26, 2010), 2010 WL 6531627, (D.O.T.), August 27, 2010;\nIn the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corporation, Final Order (CPF No. 2-2005-6012 (Dec. 1, 2006), 2008 WL\n\n\n\n2\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nTBPC did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility\nwith a controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all\nor part of a pipeline facility through a [Supervisory Control and Data\nAcquisition (SCADA)] system. Each operator must have and follow\nwritten control room management procedures that implement the\nrequirements of this section. The procedures required by this section must\nbe integrated, as appropriate, with the operator's written procedures\nrequired by §195.402. An operator must develop the procedures no later\nthan August 1, 2011, and must implement the procedures according to the\nfollowing schedule. The procedures required by paragraphs (b), (c)(5),\n(d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section must be implemented no later\nthan October 1, 2011. The procedures required by paragraphs (c)(1)\nthrough (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no later than\nAugust 1, 2012. The training procedures required by paragraph (h) must\nbe implemented no later than August 1, 2012, except that any training\nrequired by another paragraph of this section must be implemented no\nlater than the deadline for that paragraph.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) by failing to have and\nfollow written control room management procedures that implement certain requirements of the\ncontrol room management section. Specifically, the Notice alleged that TBPC failed to follow\nits own manual of written procedures, which required the company: (1) to identify and document\nthe “safety-related alarms” in its designated-alarm database; (2) to complete a review of its\nSCADA configuration and alarm management operations at least once each calendar year (for\ncalendar year 2012); (3) to include in its established training program any abnormal operating\nconditions likely to occur simultaneously or in sequence; (4) to identify, at least once each\ncalendar year, points affecting safety that had been taken “off scan” in the company’s SCADA\nhost, had alarms inhibited, had generated false alarms, or had opened or closed valves for periods\nof time exceeding that required for associated maintenance or operating activities; and (5) to\nmonitor and document the content and volume of general activity being directed to and required\nof each controller.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) by failing to have and\nfollow its own manual of written control room management procedures implementing the\nrequirements of this section.\n902910 (D.O.T.), March 31, 2008. PHMSA final orders are generally accessible on the agency’s website, available\nat http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions.\n\n\n\n3\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(d)(4), which states:\n§ 195.446 Control room management.\n(a) . . .\n(d) Fatigue mitigation. Each operator must implement the following\nmethods to reduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that could\ninhibit a controller’s ability to carry out the roles and responsibilities the\noperator has defined:\n(1) . . .\n(4) Establish a maximum limit on controller hours-of-service, which may\nprovide for an emergency deviation from the maximum limit if necessary for\nthe safe operation of a pipeline facility.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(d)(4) by failing to implement\nan established maximum limit on controller hours-of-service (HOS). Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that TBPC, on 12 occasions, exceeded the company’s established HOS limit for two\ncontrollers.4 According to the Notice, from August 26, 2012 - September 7, 2012, Employee #1\nallegedly exceeded the 65-hour HOS limit. Furthermore, on September 1, 2012, Employee #1\nwas not provided with a minimum of 35 off-duty hours. Employee #2 exceeded the HOS limit\non four occasions between September 1, 2012, and September 12, 2012, and was not afforded\nthe minimum off-duty time on September 7, 2012.5\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(d)(4) by failing to\nimplement an established maximum limit on controller hours-of-service.\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. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.6 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.\n4 According to the Notice, TBPC’s Operations & Maintenance Procedure Manual, Section 8.6.1, Work Schedule,\nrequired that controllers’ “hours of service for any seven-day period is limited to 65 hours. If in any event 65 hours\nof service in any seven day period is reached, a minimum of 35 off duty hours will be required prior to returning to\nwork.”\n5 Violation Report, at 13.\n6 The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-90, § 2(a)(1), 125 Stat.\n1904, effective January 3, 2012, increased the civil penalty liability for violating a pipeline safety standard to\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any related series of\nviolations.\n\n\n\n4\n§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,\ncircumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the\ndegree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect\nthat the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of\nRespondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may\nconsider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of\nsubsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total\ncivil penalty of $55,300 for the violations cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $27,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(a), for failing to have follow written control room management procedures that\nimplement the requirements of the control room management section. TBPC neither contested\nthe allegation nor presented any evidence or argument justifying modification of the proposed\npenalty. The Respondent failed to complete five discreet control room management procedures,\nany one of which would have provided the basis for a single item of violation and separate\npenalty. In addition, given that the Respondent failed to take any good-faith measures to achieve\ncompliance and the lengthy duration7 of the violation, I find the penalty is appropriate.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $27,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $28,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.446(d)(4), for failing to implement an established maximum limit on controller hours-of-\nservice. TBPC neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument\njustifying modification of the proposed penalty. One of the primary purposes of the control\nroom management regulations is to prevent errors and accidents due to worker fatigue. Safety is\ncompromised when workers are too tired to perform their jobs adequately. Accordingly, having\nreviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of\n$28,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(d).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $55,300.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations\n(49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 269039, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125. The\nFinancial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $55,300 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\n7 The duration of the violation was 285 days. Violation Report, at 8.\n\n\n\n5\ncourt of the United States.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.215, Respondent has the right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.215. The filing of a petition automatically stays the payment of\nany civil penalty assessed but does not stay any other provisions of the Final Order, including\nany required corrective actions. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final\nOrder becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is\nwaived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nJeffrey D. Wiese Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":15000}