# BETA OFFSHORE — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 22024006NOPV
- **title:** BETA OFFSHORE — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2024-06-12
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 199.105(b)(1), 199.225(a)(1).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-22024006nopv.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-22024006nopv.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-22024006nopv
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/22024006NOPV
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving BETA OFFSHORE. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 199.105(b)(1),  199.225(a)(1). The case was opened on 2024-06-12 and is reported as closed as of 2024-11-01. Proposed civil penalty: $59,400. Assessed civil penalty: $59,400. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

22024006NOPV_Closure Letter_11012024_(24-302070).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/22024006NOPV/22024006NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11012024_(24-302070).pdf

22024006NOPV_Closure Letter_11012024_(24-302070)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/22024006NOPV/22024006NOPV_Closure%20Letter_11012024_(24-302070)_text.pdf

22024006NOPV_Final Order_10252024_(24-302070).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/22024006NOPV/22024006NOPV_Final%20Order_10252024_(24-302070).pdf

22024006NOPV_Final Order_10252024_(24-302070)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/22024006NOPV/22024006NOPV_Final%20Order_10252024_(24-302070)_text.pdf

22024006NOPV_Operator Response to Notice _08012024_(24-302070).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/22024006NOPV/22024006NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20_08012024_(24-302070).pdf

22024006NOPV_PCP_06122024_(24-302070).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/22024006NOPV/22024006NOPV_PCP_06122024_(24-302070).pdf

22024006NOPV_PCP_06122024_(24-302070)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/22024006NOPV/22024006NOPV_PCP_06122024_(24-302070)_text.pdf

22024006NOPV_Final Order_10252024_(24-302070)_text.pdf

October 25, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: martyn.willsher@amplifyenergy.com
Martyn Willsher
President and Chief Executive Officer
Amplify Energy Corp.
500 Dallas, Suite 1700
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 2-2024-006-NOPV
Dear Mr. Willsher:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to Beta Offshore, a
subsidiary of Amplify Energy Corp. It makes findings of violations and assesses a civil penalty
of $59,400. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action
closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective
upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as provided under 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. James A. Urisko, Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Daniel Furbee, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Amplify Energy
Corp., dan.furbee@amplifyenergy.com



Mr. Jeff Ortloff, Director of Facilities Engineering, Amplify Energy Corp.,
jeff.ortloff@amplifyenergy.com
Mr. Jason Moore, Vice President, Human Resources and Administration, Amplify
Energy Corp., jason.moore@amplifyenergy.com
CONFIRMATION OF 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 )
Beta Operating Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 2-2024-006-NOPV
d/b/a Beta Offshore, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From March 20 through March 21, 2024, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), conducted a pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Beta Offshore (Beta
or Respondent) in Houston, Texas. PHMSA inspected Respondent’s Drug and Alcohol (D&A)
program in relation to an October 1, 2021 accident (the Accident) that occurred on Beta’s crude
oil pipeline facility near Huntington Beach, California.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southern Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated June 12, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil
Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Respondent had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 199 and proposed assessing a civil
penalty of $59,400 for the alleged violations.
Amplify Energy Corp. responded to the Notice on behalf of Beta by letter dated August 1, 2024
(Response).
1 In its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegations of violation or the
proposed civil penalty. However, Respondent did contest one of the statements of fact in the
narratives of Items 1 and 2 in the Notice. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has
waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, Respondent did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.
Part 199, as follows:
1 Beta is a subsidiary of Amplify Energy Corp. See, Letter from Jason Moore, V.P., H.R & Admin., Amplify
Energy Corp., on behalf of Beta Offshore, to James A. Urisko, Southern Region Dir., PHMSA, RE: CPF 2-2024-
006-NOPV (Aug. 1, 2024) (on file with PHMSA) [hereinafter Response].



Item 1. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b)(1), which states:
§ 199.105 Drug tests required.
(a) .…
(b) Post-accident testing.
(1) As soon as possible but no later than 32 hours after an accident, an
operator must drug test each surviving covered employee whose
performance of a covered function either contributed to the accident or
cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident. An
operator may decide not to test under this paragraph but such a decision
must be based on specific information that the covered employee's
performance had no role in the cause(s) or severity of the accident.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.105(b)(1) by failing to drug test for
the presence of a prohibited drug, as soon as possible but no later than 32 hours after an accident,
each surviving covered employee whose performance of a covered function either contributed to
the Accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the Accident.
Specifically, Beta did not conduct any post-accident drug testing on any covered employees after
the Accident.
Respondent did not contest the alleged violation or the accompanying civil penalty. However,
Respondent did contest one of the statements in the Notice’s narrative for Item 1 and requested
PHMSA clarification of such in this Final Order.2 The statement at issue in the Notice quotes
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report3 addressing the Accident, explaining
that “[a]ccording to the NTSB report, ‘pipeline controllers contributed to the 14-hour delay in
stopping the pipeline’s shipping pumps, which consequently increased the volume of crude oil
released, following the first leak alarm.’”4 Respondent states that “[t]his statement in isolation
suggests that Beta never shut off the pumps over the course of 14 hours . . . the NTSB report
makes it clear that Beta did not run the pumps that entire time.”5 Respondent requested PHMSA
clarify in this Final Order “that Beta did not run the pumps for 14 hours after the first alarm
indications, and instead shut down and restarted the pipeline several times as part of its efforts to
attempt to determine the cause of the alarm.”6
I acknowledge Beta’s statements that during the Accident its personnel stopped the pumps at
different junctures and attempted to determine the cause of the alarms, as is reflected in the
2 See Response, at 1-2.
3 NTSB Report MIR-24-01 (Jan. 2, 2024), available at
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MIR2401.pdf.
4 Id., at 6.
5 Response, at 2.
6 Id., at 3.



NTSB report.7 However, that acknowledgment does not affect the allegation in Item 1 of the
Notice. I note the statement PHMSA quoted from in the NTSB report in Item 1 reflects NTSB’s
conclusion in relation to controller training that their actions contributed to the amount of crude
oil released. That statement supports the allegation in Item 1 that these employees should have
been subject to post-accident drug testing under § 199.105, and Beta also did not prepare and
maintain a decision stating the reasons why the testing was not conducted as required.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 199.105(b)(1) by failing to drug test each surviving covered employee whose performance of a
covered function either contributed to the Accident or could not be completely discounted as a
contributing factor to the Accident.
Item 2. The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1), which states:
§ 199.225 Alcohol tests required.
Each operator must conduct the following types of alcohol tests for
the presence of alcohol:
(a) Post-accident.
(1) As soon as practicable following an accident, each operator must
test each surviving covered employee for alcohol if that employee's
performance of a covered function either contributed to the accident or
cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident.
The decision not to administer a test under this section must be based on
specific information that the covered employee's performance had no role
in the cause(s) or severity of the accident.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated § 199.225(a)(1) failed to test for the presence of
alcohol, as soon as practicable following an accident, each surviving covered employee whose
performance of a covered function either contributed to the Accident or cannot be completely
discounted as a contributing factor to the Accident. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
Respondent failed to conduct any alcohol testing on any covered employees following the
Accident.
Respondent did not contest the alleged violation in Item 2 or the proposed civil penalty.
However, Respondent did contest one of the statements of fact in the narrative of the allegations
for Item 2.
8 The statement at issue is the same statement discussed above, “[a]ccording to the
NTSB report, ‘pipeline controllers contributed to the 14-hour delay in stopping the pipeline’s
shipping pumps, which consequently increased the volume of crude oil released, following the
first leak alarm.’”9 Respondent requested PHMSA clarify in this Final Order that “Beta did not
7 NTSB Report MIR-24-01, at 1, 4-7.
8 See Response, at 1-2.
9 NTSB Report MIR-24-01, at 6.



run the pumps for 14 hours after the first alarm indications, and instead shut down and restarted
the pipeline several times as part of its efforts to attempt to determine the cause of the alarm.”10
Consistent with Item 1 above, I acknowledge Beta’s statements that during the Accident its
personnel stopped the pumps at different junctures and attempted to determine the cause of the
alarms, as is reflected in the NTSB report.11 However, that acknowledgment does not affect the
allegation in Item 2 of the Notice. I note the statement PHMSA quoted from in the NTSB report
in Item 2 reflects NTSB’s conclusion in relation to controller training that their actions
contributed to the amount of crude oil released. That statement supports the allegation in Item 2
that these employees should have been subject to post-accident alcohol testing under § 199.225,
and Beta also did not prepare and maintain its decision stating the reasons why the testing was
not conducted as required.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 199.225(a)(1) by failing to conduct alcohol testing each surviving covered employee for
alcohol if that employee's performance of a covered function either contributed to the Accident
or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the Accident.
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. § 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.12
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; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue
doing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety
regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.
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 $59,400 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 199.105(b)(1) for failing to drug test each surviving covered employee whose performance of a
covered function either contributed to the Accident or could not be completely discounted as a
10 Response, at 2.
11 Id., at 1, 4-7.
12 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.



contributing factor to the Accident. Respondent did not contest the alleged violation or the
proposed civil penalty, and did not present any information justifying a reduction in or
elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered
the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,700 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 199.105(b)(1).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $29,700 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 199.225(a)(1) for failing to conduct alcohol testing each surviving covered employee for
alcohol if that employee's performance of a covered function either contributed to the Accident
or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the Accident. Respondent did not
contest the alleged violation or proposed civil penalty, and did not present any information
justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed
the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $29,700
for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 199.225(a)(1).
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 $59,400.
Failure to pay the 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.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the 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. The written petition must be received no later than
20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a
brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing
of a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of
the order, including any corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator,
upon request, grants a stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order
becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
October 25, 2024
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

22024006NOPV_Closure Letter_11012024_(24-302070)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: Brent.Chalmers@amplifyenergy.com;
Jeff.Ortloff@amplifyenergy.com; martyn.willsher@amplifyenergy.com
November 1, 2024
Martyn Willsher
President and Chief Executive Officer
Amplify Energy Corp.
500 Dallas, Suite 1700
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 2-2024-006-NOPV
Dear Mr. Willsher:
On October 25, 2024, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Beta Operations a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a
requirement to pay the proposed civil penalty. Based on our records and the receipt of payment,
it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this Final Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
James A. Urisko
Director, Southern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 17442