{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 42025035NOPV","title":"PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPELINE CO — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":"2025-12-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"OPEN notice of probable violation citing 192.195(a), 192.605(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025035nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025035nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-42025035nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/42025035NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPELINE CO. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.195(a),  192.605(a). The case was opened on 2025-12-23 and is reported as open. Proposed civil penalty: $93,000. Assessed civil penalty: $93,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n42025035NOPV_Final Order_04302026_(24-305809).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025035NOPV/42025035NOPV_Final%20Order_04302026_(24-305809).pdf\n\n42025035NOPV_Final Order_04302026_(24-305809)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025035NOPV/42025035NOPV_Final%20Order_04302026_(24-305809)_text.pdf\n\n42025035NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_02232026_(24-305809).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025035NOPV/42025035NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_02232026_(24-305809).pdf\n\n42025035NOPV_PCP PCO_12232025_(24-305809).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025035NOPV/42025035NOPV_PCP%20PCO_12232025_(24-305809).pdf\n\n42025035NOPV_PCP PCO_12232025_(24-305809)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/42025035NOPV/42025035NOPV_PCP%20PCO_12232025_(24-305809)_text.pdf\n\n42025035NOPV_Final Order_04302026_(24-305809)_text.pdf\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nApril 30, 2026\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tom.long@energytransfer.com\nThomas Long\nChief Executive Officer\nEnergy Transfer, LP\n1300 Main Street,\nHouston, TX 77002\nRe: CPF No. 4-2025-035-NOPV\nDear Mr. Long:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, assesses a civil penalty of $93,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by\nPanhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, to comply with the\npipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. When the\ncivil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order completed, as determined by\nthe Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final\nOrder by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and acknowledgement of receipt as\nprovided 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\nDaniel Wentworth, Executive Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ndaniel.wentworth@energytransfer.com\nChad Ingalls, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\nchad.ingalls@energytransfer.com\n\n\n\n2\nTodd Stamm, Senior Vice President of Operations, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd.stamm@energytransfer.com\nJennifer Street, Senior Vice President of Operations Services, Energy Transfer, LP,\njennifer.street@energytransfer.com\nKeegan Pieper, Assistant General Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,\nkeegan.pieper@energytransfer.com\nAnne Blankenship, Chief Counsel, Energy Transfer, LP,\nanne.blankenship@energytransfer.com\nMathew Stork, Vice President of Tech Services, Energy Transfer, LP,\nmathew.stork@energytransfer.com\nTodd Nardozzi, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\ntodd.nardozzi@energytransfer.com\nSusie Sjulin, Director, DOT Compliance, Energy Transfer, LP,\nsusie.sjulin@energytransfer.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 )\nPanhandle Eastern Pipeline, )\na subsidiary of Energy Transfer, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2025-035-NOPV\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom October 22, 2024, through October 23, 2024, a representative of the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant\nto Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), conducted an on-site pipeline safety\ninspection of the facilities and records of Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company’s, a subsidiary of\nEnergy Transfer, LP (PEPL or Respondent), Mason City Measurement and Regulating (M&R)\nStation in New Holland, Illinois.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated December 23, 2025, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 CFR § 190.207, the\nNotice proposed finding that PEPL violated 49 CFR §§ 192.195(a) and 192.605(a) and proposed\nassessing a civil penalty of $93,000 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering\nRespondent to take certain measures to correct one of the alleged violations.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, PEPL responded to the Notice by\nletter dated February 23, 2026 (Response). PEPL contested both allegations, offered additional\ninformation in response to the Notice, and requested the withdrawal of both the proposed civil\npenalty and proposed compliance order. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has\nwaived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR Part 192 as follows:\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.195(a), which states:\n\n\n\n2\n§ 192.195 Protection against accidental overpressuring.\n(a) General requirements. Except as provided in § 192.197, each\npipeline that is connected to a gas source so that the maximum\nallowable operating pressure could be exceeded as the result of\npressure control failure or of some other type of failure, must have\npressure relieving or pressure limiting devices that meet the\nrequirements of §§ 192.199 and 192.201.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.195(a) by failing to provide pressure\nrelieving or pressure limiting devices that met the requirements of sections 192.199 and 192.201\non each pipeline that was connected to a gas source so that the maximum allowable operating\npressure (MAOP) could be exceeded as the result of pressure control failure or of some other\ntype of failure. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PEPL failed to provide pressure limiting or\npressure relieving devices meeting the requirements of sections 192.199 and 192.201 at its\nMason City M&R Station to protect against accidental overpressuring.\nIn its Response, PEPL contested the alleged violation of section 192.195(a). Specifically, PEPL\nargued that it “installed, maintained, and operated a primary/worker (MAOP) for pressure\ncontrol and a secondary/monitor (OPP) regulator for pressure limiting in a series at the Mason\nCity M&R Station that met all applicable requirements of sections 192.195, 192.199, and\n192.201.”1 PEPL stated that PHMSA erroneously characterized the primary/worker and\nsecondary/monitor regulator configuration as a single device, and provided with its Response a\nfacility schematic diagram indicating the location of the primary and secondary regulators.\nFurther, PEPL argued that an overpressure condition that occurred on April 15, 2024, was due to\nan unanticipated failure of both the primary and secondary regulators to operate as designed\nrather than PEPL’s failure to meet the regulatory requirements. Tangentially, PEPL also argued\nthat PHMSA’s characterization of PEPL’s response to the overpressure event was inaccurate and\noffered clarifying evidence that it had implemented mitigating actions at the time of event and\ninstalled a third form of overpressure protection at the Mason City M&R Station to prevent\nreoccurrence.\nIn response to PEPL’s Response, Southwest Region’s Recommendation maintained that the\nviolation alleged in the Notice should be sustained. Southwest Region argued that the mere\npresence of the primary/worker regulator and secondary/monitor regulator devices was\ninsufficient to constitute regulatory compliance because the devices failed to perform their\nmandated safety function. Further, Southwest Region noted that PEPL had sufficient notice that\nthis specific regulator configuration was inadequate for ensuring overpressure protection due to\nprevious overpressuring incidents on piping in similar configurations at the facility. Finally,\nSouthwest Region stated that PEPL’s mitigation of the overpressure event that occurred on April\n15, 2024, demonstrated that the physical characteristics of the facility did not allow PEPL to\nresolve the overpressure event when it occurred.\nBased on the evidence, I find that PEPL violated 49 CFR § 192.195(a). The purpose of section\n192.195 is to protect pipelines from risks associated with internal pressures exceeding their safe\n1 Response at 3.\n\n\n\n3\noperating limits.2 Section 192.195 does not only require the operator to have pressure relieving\nor pressure limiting devices, these devices must also meet the performance-based requirements\nin section 192.201. Section 192.201(a)(2)(i) requires each pressure limiting station or pressure\nrelief station to be set to operate to ensure that the pressure does not exceed the MAOP plus 10\npercent.\nThe record demonstrates that on April 15, 2024, an overpressure event occurred at the Mason\nCity M&R Station, in which the pipeline system exceeded its MAOP of 373 psi by 18 percent\n(442 psi).3 Though PEPL had a primary/worker for pressure control and a secondary/monitor\nregulator in place at the time, the record shows that these pressure limiting devices did not meet\nthe performance-based requirements of section 192.201 as required per section 192.195(a).\nMoreover, PEPL does not deny that this overpressure event occurred or that its primary and\nsecondary pressure limiting devices failed to operate as intended and as required pursuant to the\npipeline safety regulations.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 CFR § 192.195(a) by failing to have, on each pipeline connected to a gas source so that the\nmaximum allowable operating pressure could be exceeded as the result of pressure control\nfailure or of some other type of failure, pressure relieving or pressure limiting devices that meet\nthe requirements of sections 192.199 and 192.201.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.605(a), which states:\n§ 192.605 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.\n(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each\npipeline, a manual of written procedures for conducting operations and\nmaintenance activities and for emergency response. For transmission\nlines, the manual must also include procedures for handling abnormal\noperations. This manual must be reviewed and updated by the operator\nat intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar\nyear. This manual must be prepared before operations of a pipeline\nsystem commence. Appropriate parts of the manual must be kept at\nlocations where operations and maintenance activities are conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 CFR § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its manual\nof written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that PHMSA observed PEPL’s technician fail to follow the requirements in\nPEPL’s procedure, Regulators—Test, Inspection, and Maintenance (M.06. Rev 06/28/2022)\n(PEPL’s Procedure), that a regulator be tested according to the manufacturer’s instructions on\nOctober 22, 2024, as observed during a PHMSA field inspection.\nIn its Response, PEPL contested this allegation of violation. PEPL argued that its technician\n2 In the Matter of Dominion Transmission, Inc., 2012 WL 1551671, at *2 (March 15, 2012).\n3 Exhibit A-5 of the Notice.\n\n\n\n4\nfollowed PEPL’s Procedure by adhering to all applicable elements of the manufacturer’s\ninstructions. PEPL argued that contrary to PHMSA’s assertions, the manufacturer’s instructions\nonly required adjustment of the restrictors upon initial installation and did not require this step to\nbe performed during subsequent inspections. PEPL stated that the steps of the manufacturer’s\ninstructions highlighted in Exhibit B-3 of the Notice (steps 1, 7, 8, 11, and 14) only applied\nduring initial installation. Moreover, PEPL asserted that its technician fully closed the\ndownstream valve and that PHMSA provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the\ndownstream valve was not fully closed.\nIn response to PEPL’s Response, Southwest Region’s Recommendation maintained that the\nviolation alleged in the Notice should be sustained. Southwest Region argued that PEPL’s\nProcedure for verifying proper lockup per the manufacturer’s instructions required the PEPL\ntechnician to follow the manual’s operational steps in its entirety. Southwest Region noted that\nthe relevant steps (steps 1, 7, 8, 11, and 14) are located within the operations section of the\nmanufacturer’s instructions, and that the operations section does not categorize these steps as\ninstallation-only tasks. Moreover, Southwest Region argued that the instructions for operation of\nthe axial flow valve for downstream monitoring included the requirement to close the valve to\nverify proper lockup. Southwest Region pointed out PEPL has effectively acknowledged as\nmuch in stating that “the valve had to be fully closed to achieve regulator lockup.” Lastly,\nSouthwest Region argued that its preliminary inspection findings documented the inspector’s\nobservation that the PEPL technician failed to fully close the valve. PEPL did not dispute the\ninspector’s observation and, instead, provided a response that PEPL would revise its procedure.\nFinally, Southwest Region noted that PEPL failed to provide evidence showing that the valve\nwas fully closed by its technician.\nBased on the evidence, I find that PEPL failed to follow all the manufacturer’s instructions in\naccordance with its procedure. The record indicates that section 7.3 of PEPL’s Procedures\nrequired its operations personnel to follow several steps to verify a complete annual test,\ninspection, and maintenance of regulators.4 One of these steps, step five, required personnel to\nverify proper lockup per the manufacturer’s instructions. The manufacturer’s instructions further\nrequired that the downstream block valve be closed to check for AFV lockup.5 There is no\nlanguage in the manufacturer’s instructions indicating that any specific steps within the\nDownstream Monitoring section only applied during initial installation. To comply with\nmanufacturer instructions, all steps within a section must be followed unless written or stated\notherwise.\nRegarding the issue of whether PEPL’s technician fully closed the valve, the only evidence of\nrecord indicates that the technician did not fully close the valve. Southwest Region provided an\nExit Summary from October 22, 2024, showing that the inspector documented PEPL’s failure\n“to adjust restrictor and fully close downstream block valve.”6 The Exit Summary also\ndocuments PEPL’s response, which includes no objection to the findings and a statement that its\n4 Exhibit B-2 of the Notice.\n5 Exhibit B-3 of the Notice; also known as Exhibit 1 of the Southwest Region Recommendation.\n6 Exhibit B-4 of the Notice.\n\n\n\n5\nprocedure would be revised. In its Response, PEPL argued that this evidence was insufficient to\nestablish that the PEPL technician failed to fully close the valve. However, the inspector’s\nfirsthand observations as documented in a contemporaneous record provides a sufficient\nevidentiary basis for sustaining the alleged violation, particularly where PEPL failed to provide\nany contrary evidence. Therefore, based on the weight of the evidence, PEPL’s technician failed\nto fully close the valve in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and PEPL’s\nProcedures.\nAccordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated\n49 CFR § 192.605(a) by failing to follow its manual of written procedures for conducting\noperations and maintenance activities.\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 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.7\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. In\naddition, 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 $93,000 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 $48,400 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 CFR § 192.195(a), for failing to have, on each pipeline connected to a gas source so that the\nMAOP could be exceeded as the result of pressure control failure or of some other type of\nfailure, pressure relieving or pressure limiting devices that meet the requirements of sections\n192.199 and 192.201. The new policy for calculating a proposed civil penalty did not change the\nproposed civil penalty for this item. PEPL requested the civil penalty be withdrawn because the\nviolation alleged violation did not occur. As discussed above, I find that PEPL violated section\n192.195(a) as alleged in the Notice. After reviewing the record and considering the assessment\n7 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\n6\ncriteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $48,400 for violation of 49 CFR § 192.195(a).\nItem 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $44,600 for Respondent’s violation of\n49 CFR § 192.605(a), for failing to follow its manual of written procedures for conducting\noperations and maintenance activities. The new policy for calculating a proposed civil penalty\ndid not change the proposed civil penalty for this item. PEPL requested the civil penalty be\nwithdrawn because it did not believe it was in violation of section 192.605(a) and Southwest\nRegion did not provide sufficient evidence of the violation. As discussed above, I find that PEPL\nviolated section 192.605(a) as alleged in the Notice. After reviewing the record and considering\nthe assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $44,600 for violation of\n49 CFR § 192.605(a).\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.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Item 1 in the Notice for violation of\n49 CFR § 192.195(a). Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of gas or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the\napplicable safety standards established under Chapter 601.\nWith regard to the violation of section 192.195(a) (Item 1), Respondent argued the compliance\nterms should be withdrawn. PEPL argued that it is currently collaborating with its customers to\ntransition responsibility for pressure control to the customer, which will render the proposed\ncompliance order in the Notice moot.8 The proposed compliance order in the Notice required\nPEPL to evaluate its facilities that have similar configurations to the Mason City M&R Station\nduring the overpressure event and to determine if any additional pressure relieving or pressure\nlimiting devices at those facilities are necessary to achieve compliance with section 192.195. For\nthe facilities that PEPL still holds pressure control responsibility, PEPL must comply with the\nrequirements of the proposed compliance order, as it is not rendered moot in such circumstances.\n8 Response at 4.\n\n\n\n7\nFor the above reasons, the Compliance Order is not withdrawn as set forth below.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 CFR § 190.217, Respondent is ordered\nto take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable\nto its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of section 192.195(a) (Item 1), Respondent must\nevaluate its facilities that have similar configurations to the Mason City Measurement\nand Regulating Station during the overpressure event and determine if any additional\npressure relieving or pressure limiting devices at those facilities are necessary to\nachieve compliance with section 192.195 within 60 days of receipt of the Final\nOrder.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an extension.\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nexceeding $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 CFR § 190.223 for adjusted amounts), for\neach violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for\nappropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\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, S.E., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590, with a copy sent to the Office\nof Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. The written petition must be received no later\nthan 20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain\na statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 CFR § 190.243. The filing of a\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the\norder, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in\naccordance with 49 CFR § 190.5.\n___________________________________ __________________________\nLinda Daugherty Date Issued\nActing Associate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":24410}