Enforcementhistorical
24-0040-PM-SO
RegulusPipeline researchRegulusPipeline research24-0040-PM-SO
Decision paragraph 1On April 26, 2023, an Investigator from PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Field Operations ("OHMSFO") conducted an inspection at Respondent's facility in Zellwood, Florida., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5121 and 49 CFR § 107.305.#
Decision paragraph 2On August 21, 2023, PHMSA's Investigator, along with Respondent's representatives, observed package testing at the U.S. Army Safety Center ("USASC") Packaging, Storage, and Containerization Center ("PSCC"), in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, pursuant to 49 CFR § 178.601. Following the inspection and testing failures at PSCC, PHMSA's Investigator reported one (1) alleged violation of the HMR. At the conclusion of the compliance inspection and testing, PHMSA's Investigator conducted an "exit briefing," during which the Investigator discussed the alleged violation and the required corrective actions with Respondent's representatives.#
Decision paragraph 3Upon completion of the inspection, the Investigator submitted a report to the Director of OHMSFO's Southern Region, who reviewed the report for accuracy and sufficiency of evidence.#
Decision paragraph 4Based on that review, the Director referred the matter to PHMSA's Office of Chief Counsel, thereby recommending the initiation of a civil penalty action against Respondent, pursuant to 49 CFR § 107.311.#
Decision paragraph 5Based on a preliminary assessment of the apparent nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the probable violation, as set forth in the Investigator's report, on October 31, 2024, an attorney from PHMSA's Office of Chief Counsel issued a Notice of Probable Violation ("Notice"), alleging one (1) violation of the HMR, and proposing a $12,825 civil penalty.#
Decision paragraph 6Respondent accepted electronic service of process of the Notice on November 1, 2024.#
Decision paragraph 7In the interest of settling this matter, PHMSA's attorney offered Respondent 20% off the NOPV penalty of $12,825, for a compromise penalty of $10,260, which Respondent accepted.#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.