# FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 42022012NOPV
- **title:** FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2022-02-22
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.5(a), 192.479(a), 192.481(c), 192.915(b), 192.921(a)(1), 192.935(b)(2), 192.935(c).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022012nopv.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022012nopv.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42022012nopv
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42022012NOPV
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.5(a),  192.479(a),  192.481(c),  192.915(b),  192.921(a)(1),  192.935(b)(2),  192.935(c). The case was opened on 2022-02-22 and is reported as closed as of 2024-02-22. Proposed civil penalty: $19,300. Assessed civil penalty: $19,300. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

42022012NOPV_Closure Letter_02222024_(20-185585).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022012NOPV/42022012NOPV_Closure%20Letter_02222024_(20-185585).pdf

42022012NOPV_Closure Letter_02222024_(20-185585)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022012NOPV/42022012NOPV_Closure%20Letter_02222024_(20-185585)_text.pdf

42022012NOPV_Final Order_04212023_(20-185585).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022012NOPV/42022012NOPV_Final%20Order_04212023_(20-185585).pdf

42022012NOPV_Final Order_04212023_(20-185585)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022012NOPV/42022012NOPV_Final%20Order_04212023_(20-185585)_text.pdf

42022012NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_04082022_(20-185585).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022012NOPV/42022012NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_04082022_(20-185585).pdf

42022012NOPV_PCO PCP_02222022_(20-185585).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022012NOPV/42022012NOPV_PCO%20PCP_02222022_(20-185585).pdf

42022012NOPV_PCO PCP_02222022_(20-185585)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42022012NOPV/42022012NOPV_PCO%20PCP_02222022_(20-185585)_text.pdf

42022012NOPV_Final Order_04212023_(20-185585)_text.pdf

April 21, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: gregory.mcilwain@energytransfer.com
Mr. Gregory McIlwain
Executive Vice President, Operations
Energy Transfer, LP
1300 Main Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Re: CPF No. 4-2022-012-NOPV
Dear Mr. McIlwain:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws one of
the allegations of violation, makes other findings of violation, assesses a civil penalty of $19,300,
and specifies actions that need to be taken by Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, 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 completed,
as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed.
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. Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Todd Nardozzi, Director, Regulatory Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,
todd.nardozzi@energytransfer.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 )
Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2022-012-NOPV
an affiliate of Energy Transfer, LP, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
________________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From March 9, 2020, through July 9, 2021, 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 Florida Gas
Transmission Company, LLC (FGT or Respondent) in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
and Florida.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 22, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that FGT had violated 49 C.F.R. parts 191 and 192, proposed assessing
a civil penalty of $19,300 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included an additional three
warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to correct the
probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.
FGT responded to the Notice by letter dated April 8, 2022 (Response). FGT contested several of
the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the
proposed civil penalty be eliminated. 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. Parts 191 and 192, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, which states:
§ 191.5(a) Immediate notice of certain incidents.



(a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, but no later
than one hour after confirmed discovery, each operator must give notice in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each incident as defined in
§ 191.3.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.5(a) by failing to report two
incidents to the National Response Center (NRC) at the earliest practicable moment but no later
than one hour after confirmed discovery. Specifically, the Notice alleged on March 21, 2019,
FGT discovered a reportable incident in Pinecrest, Florida at 5:21 PM, but did not report the
incident to NRC until over an hour and a half later at 7:55 PM. The Notice also alleged that on
November 7, 2019, FGT discovered a reportable incident in Orlando, Florida at 10:43 PM, but
did not report the incident until over 11 hours later, at 10:25 AM on November 8, 2019.
In its Response, FGT argued that based on the circumstances of each incident, the probable
violation should be reduced to a warning item and the civil penalty withdrawn. Arguments
relating to the proposed civil penalty are addressed below in the Assessment of Penalty.
FGT argued that the proposed violation should be reduced to a warning item because in both
instances, the delays “involved efforts by the company to make accurate determinations of
whether reporting thresholds had been met prior to making calls to the NRC and not intentional
efforts to delay or avoid reporting.”
Section 191.5(a) requires notice of certain incidents “at the earliest practicable moment
following discovery, but no later than one hour after confirmed discovery.” Section 191.3
defines “confirmed discovery” as “when it can be reasonably determined, based on information
available to the operator at the time a reportable event has occurred, even if only based on a
preliminary evaluation.” In prior cases, I have said that when §§ 191.3 and 191.5 are “read
together, § 191.5(a) requires operators to report incidents at the earliest practicable moment, but
no later than one hour after it can be reasonably determined, based on the information available,
that a reportable event has occurred, even if only based on a preliminary evaluation.” In the
Matter of Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline Inc, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration, 1-
2021-037, 2022 WL 1047171 at *2 (April 4, 2022). Further, as I have noted previously, when
PHMSA published its rule to amend this regulation in 2017, “PHMSA explained the purpose of
the revised notification requirement is to alert local, state, and federal agencies at the earliest
practicable moment so that emergency personnel or investigators can be dispatched quickly.
Without this requirement…each operator could have a different methodology that would
potentially take hours or days before an operator completed its evaluation and determined that an
accident or incident had in fact occurred.” Id; see also 82 FR 7972 (Jan 23, 2017).
PHMSA recognizes Respondent’s assertion that the delays were a result of trying to gather
additional information in order to make accurate determinations of whether thresholds have been
met. However, given the critical importance of immediate reporting, I do not find the delays
warrant withdrawing the alleged violation or reducing it to a warning.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.



§ 191.5(a) by failing to report at earliest practicable moment but no later than one hour after
discovery two reportable incidents as required.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(b)(2), which states:
§ 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an
operator take?
(a) …
(b) Third party damage and outside force damage –
(1) …
(2) Outside force damage. If an operator determines that outside force
(e.g., earth movement, loading, longitudinal, or lateral forces, seismicity of
the area, floods, unstable suspension bridge) is a threat to the integrity of a
covered segment, the operator must take measures to minimize the
consequences to the covered segment from outside force damage. These
measures include increasing the frequency of aerial, foot or other methods
of patrols; addition external protection; reducing external stress; relocating
the line; or inline inspections with geospatial and deformation tools.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(b)(2) failing to take measures
to minimize the consequences from outside force damage. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
FGT’s records indicate that though FGT has multiple standard operating practices (SOP) to
identify potential preventative and mitigating factors of outside force damage, in practice FGT
only conducts right-of-way (ROW) patrols to address the threat of outside forces. The Notice
documented that FGT identified five SOPs that address the potential threats of outside force
damage, including I.16 River Crossing Inspections and Post Flood Surveys, I.24 Management of
Depth of Cover and Evaluation, I.25 Pipeline Spans and Aerial Crossing Inspections, I.26
Mining Subsidence and Soil Slippage, and I.42 Geohazard Management Guidelines. Based on a
review of Respondent’s records provided during and after the inspection, however, the Notice
alleged Respondent only performed ROW patrols to address the threat of outside forces.
In its Response, Respondent contested the alleged violation and explained that ROW patrols are
only one of the ways it evaluates outside force damage. FGT argued that PHMSA has not made
available clear examples, discussions, or exhibits to support a finding that it is in violation of the
regulations. Additionally, FGT stated it has numerous SOPs to address outside force damage
which it has either enhanced or developed since receiving the Notice.
The Violation Report for Item 5 lists as supporting evidence FGT’s Pipeline Integrity
Management Plan, revised January 20, 2020. Having reviewed this evidence, I find that Section
9.1 of the IMP describes data sources to be considered for preventative and mitigative measures
analysis. For weather-related and outside forces, the data include patrolling, soil stability,
seismic activity, flooding data, any available scour depths studies of waterways, and assessment
data. I find this evidence does not demonstrate the allegation in the Notice that “only ROW
patrols are being carried out to address the threat of outside force” or that “FGT limited its
evaluation of outside force damage to [ROW] patrols for identifying potential preventative and



mitigative measures.”1 § 192.935(b)(2).
Therefore, I find there is insufficient evidence to find FGT in violation of
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, Item 5 and the corresponding compliance item
are hereby withdrawn.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(c), which states:
§ 192.935 What additional preventive and mitigative measures must an
operator take?
(a) …
(c) Automatic shut-off valves (ASV) or Remote control valves (RCV). If
an operator determines, based on a risk analysis, that an ASV or RCV would
be an efficient means of adding protection to a high consequence area in the
event of a gas release, an operator must install the ASV or RCV. In making
that determination, an operator must, at least, consider the following factors
– swiftness of leak detection and pipe shutdown capabilities, the type of gas
being transported, operating pressure, the rate of potential release, pipeline
profile, the potential for ignition, and location of nearest response
personnel.2
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.935(c) by failing to conduct an
evaluation, based on a risk analysis, regarding the use of an automatic shut-off valve (ASV) or
remote control valve (RCV) on its pipeline system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that at the
time of the inspection, FGT could not show any documentation that it had conducted an
evaluation to determine whether it needed to install an ASV or RCV on its pipeline system.
In its Response, FGT provided additional information describing its installation of ACVs on its
mainline valves to protect the high consequence areas (HCAs) and agreed to follow the proposed
compliance order.
Accordingly, having considered the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 192.935(c) by failing to conduct an evaluation, based on risk analysis, regarding the use of an
ASV or RCV on its pipeline system.
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
1 Notice, at 5.
2 § 192.935(c) (2021). Subsequent to the Notice, PHMSA amended § 192.935(c) by “Pipeline Safety: Requirement
of Valve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards,” Final Rule, 87 FR 20940 (Apr. 8, 2022).



$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.3
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 $19,300 for the violation cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 191.5(a), for failing to notify NRC at the earliest practicable moment, but no later than one
hour after confirmed discovery, of two reportable incidents in 2019. Respondent requested that
PHMSA withdraw the proposed civil penalty on the basis that FGT had no history of prior
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 191.5, that the gravity of the violation had minimal effect on pipeline
safety, and because the delays were based on efforts by FGT to determine whether the incidents
met reporting thresholds. Additionally, FGT included the training material slides it intends to
use to prevent similar occurrences in the future with its Response.
Upon review of the Notice and Violation Report, I find that the proposed penalty already took
into account the violation was as a first-time offense, therefore there is no reason to further
reduce the penalty based on FGT having no prior history of violating 49 C.F.R. §191.5.
Likewise, the proposed penalty represented the lowest gravity, having a minimal effect on
pipeline safety. Therefore, a further reduction on that basis is also not warranted. Moreover,
FGT’s argument that the penalty should be withdrawn because the delays were based on efforts
by FGT to determine whether the incidents met reporting thresholds is also not a reason to
reduce or withdraw the civil penalty. As explained above, the purpose of this notification
requirement is to alert local, state, and federal agencies at the earliest practicable moment so that
emergency personnel or investigators can be dispatched quickly. Therefore, I find FGT did not
have a reasonable justification for its non-compliance under the good faith assessment factor.
Finally, FGT included the training slides it intends to use to prevent delayed reporting in the
future. While PHMSA recognizes Respondent’s swift corrective measures to comply with
pipeline safety regulations, such actions taken after an inspection are not a basis for a reduction
or withdrawal of a civil penalty.4 Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the
assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $19,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 191.5(a).
3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.
4 See In the Matter of Oasis Midstream Partners LP, a General Partner of Oasis Petroleum Inc., Final Order 3-
2019-5020, 2020 WL 6870720 at 7 (August 19, 2020) (“While Oasis is to be commended for improving its internal
processes to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations, such post-inspection activities do not warrant
the withdrawal of, or a reduction in, a proposed civil penalty.”)



Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.
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, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
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.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 5 and 6 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.935(b)(2) and 192.935(c), 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.
As stated above, the compliance item corresponding to the alleged violation of § 192.935(b)(2)
(Item 5) is withdrawn. Therefore, the proposed compliance order with respect to Item 5 is not
included.
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 § 192.935(c) (Item 6), Respondent must conduct
an evaluation, based on a risk analysis, that an ASV or RCV would be an efficient
means of adding protection to the HCAs and provide documentation or records of the
evaluation within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.
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.
PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.



Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), 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 2, 3 and 4, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 192, but
identified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 192.481(c) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to clean and coat
sections of its pipeline at the West Miami Meter Station thereby failing to provide
protection against corrosion found during the inspection;
49 C.F.R. § 192.915(b) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to have qualified
individuals conduct, review, and analyze integrity assessments and evaluations of
its pipeline facilities; and
49 C.F.R. § 192.921(a)(1) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to validate its
baseline assessment by not conducting excavation digs on its FLMEF-2426
pipeline segment following the 2018 assessment as required and in accordance
with its written procedures.
FGT 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. § 190.243, 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
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 corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon
request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
April 21, 2023
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

42022012NOPV_Closure Letter_02222024_(20-185585)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: eric.amundsen@energytransfer.com
February 22, 2024
Eric Amundsen
Senior Vice President, Operations
Florida Gas Transmission Company
1300 Main Street
Houston, Texas 77002
CPF 4-2022-012-NOPV
Dear Mr. Amundsen:
On April 21, 2023, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Florida Gas Transmission Company a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This
Order included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review of the
documentation you provided and confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been
determined that you have complied with the terms of this 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,
Bryan Lethcoe
Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: Todd Nardozzi, Director – DOT Compliance, todd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 24244