{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42024002NOPV","title":"ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2024-05-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.202, 195.420(b), 195.428(a), 195.589(c).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024002nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024002nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42024002nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42024002NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.202,  195.420(b),  195.428(a),  195.589(c). The case was opened on 2024-05-14 and is reported as closed as of 2026-04-23. Proposed civil penalty: $135,500. Assessed civil penalty: $135,500. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42024002NOPV_Final Order_04072026_(23-264216).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024002NOPV/42024002NOPV_Final%20Order_04072026_(23-264216).pdf\n\n42024002NOPV_Final Order_04072026_(23-264216)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024002NOPV/42024002NOPV_Final%20Order_04072026_(23-264216)_text.pdf\n\n42024002NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_08122024_(23-264216).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024002NOPV/42024002NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08122024_(23-264216).pdf\n\n42024002NOPV_PCP_05142024_(23-264216).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024002NOPV/42024002NOPV_PCP_05142024_(23-264216).pdf\n\n42024002NOPV_PCP_05142024_(23-264216)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42024002NOPV/42024002NOPV_PCP_05142024_(23-264216)_text.pdf\n\n42024002NOPV_Final Order_04072026_(23-264216)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue,\nSE Washington, D.C. 20590\nApril 7, 2026\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: GBacon@eprod.com\nGraham Bacon\nExecutive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC\n1100 Louisiana Street\nHouston, Texas 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2024-002-NOPV\nDear Mr. Bacon:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $135,500. 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 e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of\nreceipt as provided under 49 CFR § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nLinda Daugherty\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Bryan Lethcoe, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nJeff Morton, Senior Director, Transportation Compliance, Enterprise Products Operating\nLLC, JCMorton@eprod.com\nCONFIRMATION OF 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____________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2024-002-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom February 27 through August 15, 2023, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, representatives of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of the\nEnterprise Products Operating, LLC (Enterprise or Respondent) TEPPCO South systems in\nTexas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 14, 2024, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nEnterprise had committed two violations of 49 CFR Part 195 and proposed assessing a civil\npenalty of $135,500 for the alleged violations. The Notice also included an additional two\nwarning items pursuant to 49 CFR § 190.205, which warned Respondent to correct the probable\nviolations or face possible future enforcement action.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, Enterprise responded to the\nNotice by letter dated August 12, 2024 (Response). Enterprise contested several of the\nallegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the\nproposed civil penalty be reduced. Enterprise did not request a hearing and therefore has waived\nits right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 195, as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.428(a), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 195.428 Overpressure safety devices and overfill protection systems.\n(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each operator\nshall, at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear, or in the case of pipelines used to carry highly volatile liquids, at\nintervals not to exceed 7 1⁄2 months, but at least twice each calendar year,\ninspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly, is in good mechanical condition, and is adequate from\nthe standpoint of capacity and reliability of operation for the service in\nwhich it is used.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test\neach pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure regulator, or other item of pressure control\nequipment at the required intervals. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise exceeded the\n7 1/2 month interval for 10 overpressure protection devices.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the alleged violation. Enterprise provided records to\nshow it is improving the use of two computerized maintenance management system queries for\ntracking automated work order generation and equipment compliance status.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR\n§ 195.428(a) by failing to inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment at the required intervals.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.420(b), which states:\n§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(a) . . . .\n(b) Each operator must, at least twice each calendar year, but at intervals\nnot exceeding 7 1/2 months, inspect each mainline valve to determine that\nit is functioning properly. Each rupture-mitigation valve (RMV), as defined\nin § 195.2 and not contained in a gathering line, or alternative equivalent\ntechnology that is installed under § 195.258(c) or § 195.418, must also be\npartially operated. Operators are not required to close the valve fully during\nthe inspection; a minimum 25 percent valve closure is sufficient to\ndemonstrate compliance, unless the operator has operational information\nthat requires an additional closure percentage for maintaining reliability.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each\nmainline valve at least twice each calendar year, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Enterprise failed to\ninspect 21 mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months.\n\n\n\n3\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested the alleged violation as to 8 of the valves.1 Enterprise\nstated that the valves were each inspected at the proper interval and the inspections complied\nwith the regulation. Enterprise acknowledged “the valves were not operated during the\ninspections out of concern for potential product cross-contamination” but argued\nsection 195.420(b) did not require the valves to be operated during the inspections because they\nare not RMVs.\n2 Enterprise noted further that it complied with its own written procedures, which\ndirected Enterprise to “[o]perate the valve[s] fully or partially if it is acceptable to do so without\ninterfering with operations.”3\nWith regard to the remaining 13 valves, Enterprise did not contest the alleged violation and\nexplained that it is implementing corrective actions to prevent future missed inspections and to\nensure inspection intervals do not exceed 7 1/2 months.\nAnalysis\nSection 195.420(b) requires each mainline valve to be inspected twice per year at intervals not\nexceeding 7 1/2 months to determine the valve is functioning properly. In 2022, PHMSA\namended 49 CFR Part 195, including section 195.420(b), to add specific requirements for\nRMVs.\n4 In its Response, Enterprise indicated the mainline valves at issue in this matter are not\nRMVs. Therefore, for purposes of determining Respondent’s compliance, PHMSA considers\nonly the first sentence in section 195.420(b), which applies to all mainline valves and requires\nsemi-annual inspections “to determine [each mainline valve] is functioning properly.”\nThe inspection requirement in section 195.420(b) is virtually unchanged since the first hazardous\nliquid pipeline safety regulations were adopted.\n5 In the half-century since its adoption, PHMSA\nhas had opportunities to interpret the regulation and explain how operators must “determine that\n[each mainline valve] is functioning properly.” For example, in one final order, PHMSA\nconcluded an operator had violated section 195.420(b) when the operator performed only visual\ninspections of mainline valves and failed to operate them to determine the valves functioned\nproperly.6 In another final order, PHMSA found that a violation of section 195.420(b) occurred\nwhen an operator’s valve inspection records “did not show that the valve had been properly\noperated.”7 In a third adjudication, PHMSA determined the operator committed a violation of\n1 The contested valves were: MREP2VA189.1; MREP62VA250A; MREP74VA31; MREP74VA31B;\nMREP74VA45; MREP74VA46; MREP107MOV0002; and P82 Propane VA 095.\n2 Response at 3.\n3 Response at 3 (quoting procedures section 5.6.3).\n4 Pipeline Safety: Requirement of Valve Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards, 87 Fed. Reg.\n20,940 (Apr. 8, 2022).\n5 Requirements for Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance, 34 Fed. Reg. 15,473 (Oct. 4, 1969) (codified\nat 49 CFR § 195.420(b): “Each carrier shall, at intervals not exceeding 6 months, inspect each main line valve to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly.”)\n6 Plains Marketing, L.P., Final Order, CPF No. 4-2010-5014, 2011 WL 7416428, at *1 (Dec. 19, 2011).\nEnforcement actions are available at primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/actions/orders.\n7 Plains Pipeline, LP, Final Order, CPF No. 4-2016-5015, 2018 WL 2229413, at *3 (Mar. 7, 2018).\n\n\n\n4\nsection 195.420(b) when the operator was unable to produce records demonstrating mainline\nvalves were operated twice within a calendar year.8 PHMSA has also issued guidance to\noperators on section 195.420(b) noting “operator[s] must inspect and partially operate all\nmainline valves within the required time intervals.”9\nThe enforcement history and guidance for section 195.420(b) demonstrate PHMSA has long\ninterpreted the inspection requirement mandates partial operation of each mainline valve in order\nto determine if the valve is functioning properly. That interpretation is a reasonable one, since a\nvisual inspection alone does not provide information about whether a valve is functioning\nproperly. An operator’s determination if a valve is properly functioning is critical to complying\nwith section 195.420(b).10 The plain text of the regulation and PHMSA’s historical application\nrender unavailing Respondent’s argument that the mainline valves were not required to be\npartially operated during their semi-annual inspections.\nRespondent also argued that one of the valves, in addition to not being an RMV, was not\npartially operated because it is on an “idled” system.\nThe term “idled” is not defined in the pipeline safety regulations, but PHMSA recognizes the\nterm is sometimes used to refer to a pipeline “not currently in operation but that may be used in\nthe future.”11 But there is nothing in 49 CFR Part 195 that exempts idled pipelines from section\n195.420(b).12 Therefore, this argument by Respondent is also unavailing.\nAfter considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 195.420(b) by\nfailing to inspect each of the 21 mainline valves identified in the Notice at least twice each\ncalendar year, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, to determine that it is functioning\nproperly.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\n8 Menzies Aviation, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2023-012-NOPV, 2023 WL 3884050, at *3 (Apr. 26, 2023).\n9 PHMSA Operations and Maintenance Enforcement Guidance: Part 195 Subpart F, at 63 (Jul. 21, 2017) available at\nwww.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/regulatory-compliance/pipeline/enforcement/5781/o-m-\nenforcement-guidance-part-195-7-21-2017.pdf (last visited Mar. 11, 2026).\n10 Respondent did not suggest that it used any other way to determine each valve is functioning properly.\n11 Pipeline Safety: Clarification of Terms Relating to Pipeline Operational Status, 81 Fed. Reg. 54,512, 54,513 (Aug.\n16, 2016).\n12 See Id. at 54,513-14 (explaining that idled pipelines are considered active and must comply with all relevant\nsafety requirements, but where an operator coordinates in advance with PHMSA, PHMSA may accept deferral of\ncertain activities that are impracticable to perform on pipelines that are purged of combustibles).\n\n\n\n5\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty exceeding\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, with a maximum administrative civil\npenalty exceeding $2,000,000 for any related series of violations.13\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require.\nThe Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $135,500 for the violations cited above. Effective\nMay 20, 2025, PHMSA revised its proposed civil penalty calculation policy to use the version of\nthe Civil Penalty Worksheet in effect when the alleged violation occurred. The new policy did\nnot change the proposed civil penalty in this case.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $89,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 195.428(a) for failing to inspect and test each pressure limiting device, relief valve, pressure\nregulator, or other item of pressure control equipment.\nIn its Response, Enterprise did not contest the allegation but requested that the proposed penalty\nbe reduced considering its history of prior offenses. Enterprise argued the penalty should be\nreduced because prior violations of section 195.428(a) referenced in the Notice occurred nearly a\ndecade ago during 2014 and 2015.\nWhen assessing a civil penalty, PHMSA “shall consider” with respect to the respondent “any\nhistory of prior violations.”14 When applying this statutory assessment factor, PHMSA considers\nviolations of the pipeline safety regulations established in a final order that was issued within\nfive years of the current notice of probable violation.15 In the present case, the five-year window\nprior to the issuance of the Notice on May 14, 2024 includes one prior final order issued to\nRespondent on April 6, 2020. That final order found violations of section 195.428(a).16 Because\nthe prior violations fall within the period of time PHMSA uses when considering the assessment\nfactor, the civil penalty amount appropriately reflects Respondent’s prior violations.\nAccordingly, the penalty is not reduced.\n13 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n14 49 U.S.C. § 60122(b)(1)(B).\n15 See Civil Penalty Summary at 3 (Feb. 27, 2026) available at: www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulatory-\ncompliance/pipeline/enforcement/civil-penalty-summary (last visited Mar. 11, 2026) (“Prior findings of violation\ninclude a civil penalty or compliance order in the five years that precede the date of the Notice.”).\n16 Enterprise Products Operating, LLC, CPF No. 1-2018-5003, 2020 WL 7079885, Item 13 (Apr. 6, 2020).\n\n\n\n6\nHaving reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil\npenalty of $89,000 for violation of 49 CFR § 195.428(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 CFR\n§ 195.420(b) for failing to inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is functioning\nproperly. Enterprise requested a reduction in the penalty corresponding to the eight valves it\nargued should be excluded. As determined above, however, Enterprise failed to meet the\nrequirements of section 195.420(b) for all 21 of the valves alleged. Therefore, no reduction in\nthe penalty is warranted. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the\nassessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $46,500 for violation of 49 CFR\n§ 195.420(b).\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 $135,500.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 CFR § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 CFR § 901.9 and 49 CFR § 89.23. Pursuant to those same\nauthorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment is not\nmade within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result in\nreferral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the\nUnited States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3 and 4, the Notice alleged a probable violation of Part 195 but identified\neach as a warning item pursuant to section 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 CFR § 195.202 (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to construct each\npipeline system in accordance with its written procedures regarding the minimum\nacceptable length of each bolt.\n49 CFR § 195.589(c) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain a\nrecord of an inspection of removed pipe for internal corrosion to demonstrate the\nadequacy of corrosion control measures or that corrosion requiring control\nmeasures does not exist.\n\n\n\n7\nIn its Response, Enterprise contested the warning items and requested they be withdrawn.\nSpecifically, Enterprise explained that with respect to Item 3, the scope of the standard at\nissue was not retroactively applicable to joints completed before the standard was issued.\nWith respect to Item 4, Enterprise contended a maintenance report indicated an internal\ninspection was performed.\nPursuant to section 190.205, a respondent may respond to a warning, but is not required\nto, and PHMSA does not conduct an adjudication of warnings to determine if a violation\noccurred. However, as a matter of enforcement discretion, and in consideration of the\nrecommendation for final action submitted by the Director pursuant to section\n190.209(b)(7), Item 3 is rescinded.\nUnder 49 CFR § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nbrief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The filing\nof a petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of\nthe order, including any corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator,\nupon request, grants a stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order\nbecomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nCFR § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":21344}