# BRIDGER SWAN RANCH, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

**Citation:** CPF 520186004  
**Type / status:** enforcement / historical  
**Agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration  
**Effective:** Not stated  
**Published:** 2018-02-28

CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.101(a), 195.403(b), 195.412(a), 195.420(b), 195.440(a), 195.446(a), 195.452(b)(2), 195.573(c).

## Document text

Notice of Probable Violation involving BRIDGER SWAN RANCH, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.101(a),  195.403(b),  195.412(a),  195.420(b),  195.440(a),  195.446(a),  195.452(b)(2),  195.573(c). The case was opened on 2018-02-28 and is reported as closed as of 2020-10-30. Proposed civil penalty: $88,800. Assessed civil penalty: $81,600. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

520186004_Closure Letter_10302020.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Closure%20Letter_10302020.pdf

520186004_Closure Letter_10302020_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Closure%20Letter_10302020_text.pdf

520186004_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_10102019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10102019.pdf

520186004_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_10102019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10102019_text.pdf

520186004_Final Order_05312019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Final%20Order_05312019.pdf

520186004_Final Order_05312019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Final%20Order_05312019_text.pdf

520186004_NOPV PCP PCO_02282018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02282018.pdf

520186004_NOPV PCP PCO_02282018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02282018_text.pdf

520186004_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_06172019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06172019.pdf

520186004_Operator Response to Notice_03302018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03302018.pdf

520186004_NOPV PCP PCO_02282018_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
February 28, 2018
Mr. Otis Randle
Vice President of Environmental Safety and Regulatory Compliance
Bridger Environmental, LLC
6100 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 1600
Plano, Texas 75093-8230
CPF 5-2018-6004
Dear Mr. Randle:
On August 29 through September 2, 2016, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States
Code, inspected Bridger Logistics LLC’s (Bridger) Swan Ranch Facility in Cheyenne,
Wyoming.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and
the probable violations are:



1. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline
integrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must:
(2) Include in the program an identification of each pipeline or pipeline segment
in the first column of the following table not later than the date in the second
column:
Pipeline Date
Category 1…………………………...
Category 2…………………………...
Category 3…………………………...
December 31, 2001.
November 18, 2002.
Date the pipeline begins operation.
Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. §195.452(b)(2) by failing to complete identification of pipeline
segments that could affect a High Consequence Area (HCA). Specifically, Bridger’s integrity
management program did not identify the Swan Ranch Facility pipeline segment as a
hazardous liquid pipeline that could affect a HCA.1 During the inspection, a National
Pipeline Mapping System map overlay with the Swan Ranch Facility pipeline showed the
entire pipeline segment was within a drinking water resource, making it a pipeline that could
affect an HCA.2 Furthermore, this facility has been in service since November 2013 so it is a
category 3 pipeline, requiring that HCAs be identified when the pipeline begins operation.3
By failing to identify the Swan Ranch Facility pipeline segment as a pipeline that could affect
an HCA on the date the pipeline became operational, Bridger violated §195.452(b)(2).4
1 According to 49 C.F.R. § 195.450, a “High Consequence Area” is (1) a commercially navigable waterway, (2) a
high population area, (3) an “other populated area,” or (4) “an unusually sensitive area,” as more specifically
defined in § 195.6.
2 According to 49 C.F.R §195.6, an “Unusually Sensitive Area (USA)” …means a drinking water or ecological
resource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. 49
C.F.R §195.6(a) defines a drinking water resource as “(1) The water intake for a Community Water System (CWS)
or a Non-Transient Non-Community Water System (NTNCWS) that obtains its water supply primarily from a
surface water source and does not have an adequate alternative drinking water source; (2) The Source Water
Protection Area (SWPA) for a CWS or a NTNCWS that obtains its water supply from a Class I or Class IIA aquifer
and does not have an adequate alternative drinking water source. Where a state has not yet identified the SWPA,
the Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) will be used until the state has identified the SWPA; or (3) The sole source
aquifer recharge area where the sole source aquifer is a karst aquifer in nature.” See also Exhibit 1 to Violation
Report.
3 49 C.F.R. §195.452(a)(3).
4 During the inspection, Bridger personnel admitted that they were not unaware this pipeline was in a HCA-could
affect area. Violation Report at 6.
2



2. §195.446 Control room management.
(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility with a
controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of a
pipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must have and follow
written control room management procedures that implement the requirements
of this section. The procedures required by this section must be integrated, as
appropriate, with the operator's written procedures required by § 195.402. An
operator must develop the procedures no later than August 1, 2011, and must
implement the procedures according to the following schedule. The procedures
required by paragraphs (b), (c)(5), (d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section
must be implemented no later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no
later than August 1, 2012. The training procedures required by paragraph (h)
must be implemented no later than August 1, 2012, except that any training
required by another paragraph of this section must be implemented no later than
the deadline for that paragraph.
Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) by failing to have and follow written control room
management procedures that implement the requirements of this section. Bridger is the operator
of a pipeline facility with a controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all
or part of its pipeline facility through a SCADA system. At the time of the inspection, Bridger
referenced a control room management program in its Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
manual but when PHMSA requested to see this document, one could not be provided.5
Therefore, Bridger violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a).
3. §194.101 Operators required to submit plans
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, unless OPS grants a
request from an Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to require an operator of
a pipeline in paragraph (b) to submit a response plan, each operator of an
onshore pipeline facility shall prepare and submit a response plan to PHMSA as
provided in §194.119. A pipeline which does not meet the criteria for significant
and substantial harm as defined in §194.103(c) and is not eligible for an exception
under §194.101(b), can be expected to cause substantial harm. Operators of
substantial harm pipeline facilities must prepare and submit plans to PHMSA for
review.
Bridger, an operator of an onshore pipeline facility that does not fall under any exceptions,
failed to prepare and submit a response plan to PHMSA as provided in § 194.119.
Specifically, at the time of the inspection, Bridger had not submitted a plan to PHMSA for
review, therefore, violating § 194.101(a).
5 See Bridger O&M Manual at 74.
3



4. §195.403 Emergency Response Training.
(b) At the intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, each operator shall:
(1) Review with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the
emergency response training program set forth in paragraph (a) of this section;
and
(2) Make appropriate changes to the emergency response training program as
necessary to ensure that it is effective.
Bridger failed to demonstrate that it had conducted a review with personnel of their
performance in meeting the objectives of the company’s emergency response program, and
had made appropriate changes to the program as necessary to ensure that it was effective. At
the time of inspection, Bridger indicated that it conducted an annual review of its emergency
response training in conjunction with its facility response plan; however, Bridger failed to
demonstrate it had reviewed with personnel their performance in meeting the objectives of the
emergency response training and making appropriate changes to the training program to
ensure effectiveness, thereby violating §195.403(b).6
5. §195.420 Valve maintenance.
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at least
twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is
functioning properly.
Bridger failed to inspect all mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at
least twice each calendar year, in accordance with § 195.420(b). During the inspection,
Bridger personnel did not provide evidence that they had inspected any of their mainline
valves for 2014 and 2016.7
6. §195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable waters.
(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times
each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline
right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying or other
appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.
Bridger failed to inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way at
intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. Bridger provided
17 driving right-of-way patrolling records for 2015 and 13 driving right-of-way patrolling
records for 2014.8 During the inspection, Bridger personnel admitted that the remaining
6 During the inspection, Bridger personnel could not produce records or other substantiating evidence to
demonstrate that this was completed. Violation Report at 27.
7 Id. at 34.
8 Violation Report at 41.
4



records were not available and failed to provide other substantiating evidence that the
inspections were performed. By failing to inspect the surface condition on its pipeline right-
of-ways 26 times each of those calendar years, Bridger violated § 195.412(a).
7. §195.440 Public awareness
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing
public education program that follows the guidance provided in the American
Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by
reference, see §195.3).
Bridger failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program
meeting the requirements of API 1162. Specifically, Bridger failed to provide baseline
messages at the required frequency to its stakeholder audience, as required by API 1162,
Section 2 Table 2-1 (Summary Public Awareness Communications for Hazardous Liquid and
Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Operators).9
8. §195.440 Public awareness
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing
public education program that follows the guidance provided in the American
Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (IBR, see §195.3).
Bridger failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program
meeting the requirements of API 1162. Specifically, Bridger failed to follow the requirement
of API 1162, Section 3, by not identifying the affected public along its right of way.10
9. §195.440 Public awareness
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing
public education program that follows the guidance provided in the American
Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (IBR, see § 195.3).
Bridger failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program
meeting the requirements of API 1162 in violation of 49 C.F.R. §195.440(a). Specifically,
Bridger failed to follow the requirement of API 1162, Section 2.3.1 (Public Education), by not
establishing a continuing education program to enable the public, appropriate government
organizations, and persons engaged in excavation-related activities to recognize a pipeline
emergency and to report it to the operator and/or the fire, police, or other appropriate
officials.11
9 See Exhibit 2 to Violation Report at 10 (outlining message type, delivery frequency, and delivery method
and/or media for public awareness communications to the stakeholder audience).
10 Id. at 17-18 (identifying the audience(s) that should receive the program's messages).
11 Id. at 5 (noting that pipeline operators must “establish continuing education programs to enable the public,
appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation-related activities to recognize a
5



10. §195.440 Public awareness
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing
public education program that follows the guidance provided in the American
Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (IBR, see §195.3).
Bridger failed to develop and implement a written continuing public education program
meeting the requirements of API 1162. Specifically, Bridger failed to follow the requirement
of API 1162, Section 8.3 (Measuring Program Implementation), by not completing annual
audit or review of its public awareness program.12 During the inspection, Bridger personnel
were unable to provide records demonstrating that it had completed annual audits or reviews
of its public awareness program, in violation of API 1162, Section 8.3, and 49 C.F.R. §
195.440(a).
11. §195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper
performance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the second
column.
Device Check frequency
Rectifier…………………………………….. At least six times each
calendar year, but with
intervals not exceeding 2 ½
months
Bridger failed to perform electrical checks on each rectifier at least six times each calendar
year, but with intervals not exceeding every 2 ½ months for calendar years 2014 and 2015 in
accordance with 195.404 (c)(3). During the inspection, Bridger personnel were unable to
provide records demonstrating that it had performed electrical checks of its rectifiers at the
required intervals.13
pipeline emergency and to report it to the operator and/or the fire, police, or other appropriate public officials.
The programs are to be provided in both English and in other languages commonly used by a significant
concentration of non-English speaking population along the pipeline”).
12 Id. at 27 (including a sample set of questions that will aid an operator in auditing the program implementation
process, and outlining three alternative methodologies when completing an annual audit of program
implementation).
13 See 49 C.F.R. § 195.589(c)(requiring records of “each analysis, check, demonstration, examination, inspection,
investigation, review, survey, and test required by this subpart” be maintained for “. . . at least 5 years.”); see also
Violation Report at 76.
6



Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022
for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the
maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty
not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has
reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable
violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $88,800
as follows:
Item number
PENALTY
Item 5
Item 6
Item 11
$30,900
$10,100
$47,800
Warning Items
With respect to Items 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting
documents involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement
action or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct
these items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 11 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance
Order to Bridger Logistics LLC. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is
enclosed and made a part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline
Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response
options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly
available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you
must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request
a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this
Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and
7



authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this
Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this
Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from
receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2018-6004 and, for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Huy Nguyen
Acting Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 G. Ogirima (#154092)
8



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Bridger Logistics LLC (Bridger) a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Bridger
Logistics LLC with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to its integrity
management program, Bridger must identify the Swan Ranch Facility as a
pipeline that could affect a High Consequence Area (HCA) in its written
integrity management program within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to its control room
management program, Bridger must develop a control room management
program within 90 days of receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to the submission of a
facility response plan, Bridger must submit its response plan for approval
within 30 days of receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to mainline valves,
Bridger must inspect each mainline valve to determine it is functioning
properly every 7 ½ months, but at least twice each calendar year and submit
the inspections records for 2017 to PHMSA’s Western Region office by March
31, 2018.
In regard to Item Number 6 of the Notice pertaining to the pipeline rights-of-
way and crossings under navigable waters, Bridger must inspect the surface
condition on or adjacent to each pipeline right of way at intervals not
exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year and submit the
inspections records to PHMSA’s Western Region office by March 31, 2018
In regard to Item Number 11 of the Notice pertaining to the inspection of
rectifiers on their system, Bridger must electrically check each rectifier on their
system for proper performance at least 6 times each calendar year but with
intervals not exceeding 2 ½ months and submit the inspections records to
PHMSA’s Western Region office by March 31, 2018
It is requested (not mandated) that Bridger maintain documentation of the
safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and
submit the total to Huy Nguyen, Acting Director, Western Region, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. 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.
9

520186004_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_10102019_text.pdf

October 10, 2019
Mr. Joshua Jamison
Managing Member
Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC
2291 Renauna Avenue
Casper, Wyoming 82601
Re: CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Dear Mr. Jamison:
Enclosed please find my Decision on the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Bridger Swan
Ranch, LLC, in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision
denies the Petition. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding.
Service of this Decision is made pursuant to 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. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Paul Saffell, Chief Operating Officer, Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC
Mr. John Russell, General Manager, Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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 )
Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2018-6004
)
)
)
Petitioner. )
____________________________________)
DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
From August 29 through September 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative 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 Bridger
Swan Ranch, LLC’s (Bridger or Petitioner), crude oil blending and tanking facility in Cheyenne,
Wyoming. The Bridger Swan Ranch Facility consists of five tanks totaling 225,000 barrels of
blending and storage capacity for crude oil, 10 truck load/unload lanes, and pipeline connections
to the Cheyenne Rail Hub and Sinclair’s pipeline to Guernsey, Wyoming.
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to Petitioner,
by letter dated February 28, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Bridger
had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and one violation of Part 194, and proposed
assessing a civil penalty of $88,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed
ordering Petitioner to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The five warning
items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or
face possible future enforcement action.
Bridger responded to the Notice by letter dated March 30, 2018 (Response). The company
contested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested
that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Petitioner did not request a hearing and therefore
waived its right to one. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner submitted additional information about
its compliance actions and again requested that the proposed civil penalties be withdrawn or
reduced.
On May 31, 2019, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.213, PHMSA issued a Final Order in this
proceeding, found that Bridger had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and one
violation of Part 194, assessed a reduced civil penalty of $81,600 for the violations, and ordered
that Bridger take certain corrective actions, as set forth in the Compliance Order that was part of



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 2
the Final Order.1
In accordance with § 190.243, Bridger filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) on June 14,
2019, seeking reconsideration of the finding that it violated § 195.573(c) (Item 11) by failing to
perform electrical checks on each rectifier at least six times each calendar year, but with intervals
not exceeding 2½ months for calendar years 2014 and 2015, and requested that the $40,600
penalty assessed for this Item be rescinded. In addition, Bridger requested that PHMSA
reconsider and rescind all other penalties assessed in this matter.
Standard of Review
In enforcement proceedings brought under 49 C.F.R. Part 190, respondents are afforded the right
to petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order. That right, however,
does not constitute an appeal or an opportunity to seek a de novo review of the record. On the
contrary, it is an opportunity for respondents to present the Associate Administrator with
information that was not previously available or to request that errors in the final order be
corrected. The Associate Administrator does not consider repetitious information, arguments, or
petitions. In addition, any request for consideration of additional facts or arguments must be
supported by a statement of reasons as to why those facts or arguments were not presented prior
to the issuance of the final order.
Analysis
Before turning to the merits, I will address the procedural adequacy of this Petition. Under Part
190 of the Pipeline Safety Regulations, “[i]f [a] respondent requests the consideration of
additional facts or arguments [in a petition for reconsideration], the respondent must submit the
reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the final order.”2 In this case, Petitioner
wishes to “bring to [PHMSA’s] attention a matter concerning the alleged violation regarding…
Item 11.” However, the issue raised in this Petition was never mentioned in either of Bridger’s
written responses to the Notice, and Petitioner has not provided a statement of the reasons why
those facts and arguments were not presented before the issuance of the Final Order. In fact, as
explained in more detail below, Respondent’s assertions in its Petition conflict with assertions
and evidence provided in its Response.
Accordingly, I find that Bridger has not complied with the procedural requirements for raising
new facts and arguments on reconsideration. Moreover, as Bridger has not properly raised any
other arguments in this Petition, I am denying reconsideration on that basis and affirming the
Final Order without modification.
Notwithstanding the procedural defects in the Petition, I have reviewed the record regarding Item
11 in light of Petitioner’s arguments.
1 Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 5-2018-6004, (May 31, 2019) (available at
www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement).
2 49 CFR § 190.243(b).



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 3
Item 11 of the Final Order determined that Bridger violated § 195.573(c) by failing to perform
electrical checks on each rectifier at least six times each calendar year, but with intervals not
exceeding 2½ months for calendar years 2014 and 2015. In its Petition, Bridger claims that the
pipeline segments in question are protected by a passive anode system and no impressed current
system (i.e., cathodic protection) is in use. Bridger asserted that because there were no rectifiers
in place that would require electrical checks as provided in § 195.573(c), it is not possible for a
violation of § 195.573(c) to have occurred. It also stated that regular checks of the adequacy of
the passive anode system were made and documentation was provided to PHMSA. In addition,
results of a close interval survey on the two pipeline segments were provided to PHMSA at the
time of the inspection. It claimed that the electrical check records provided to PHMSA were
associated with the cathodic protection rectifiers for the facility tanks, which are covered under
§ 195.573(d) rather than § 195.573(c). Therefore, Bridger argued that § 195.573(c) cited in the
Final Order does not apply to the cathodic protection system on the facility tankage, and that
because no cathodic protection system with rectifiers exists for the pipeline segments, a violation
of § 195.573(c) could not have occurred.
Having reviewed the record, I find Petitioner’s assertion is in conflict with its Response, in
which Bridger enclosed logs of certain rectifier checks that were performed in 2014, 2015, 2016,
and 2017, and did not contest the allegation that it failed to perform required checks at the
intervals set forth in § 195.573(c) in 2014 and 2015.3 Petitioner also stated it has verified that
rectifier checks are now being performed in compliance with applicable regulations, and it
verified compliance using records of the same segments as far back as calendar year 2016.4 The
documentation provided to PHMSA during the inspection is titled “Bridger Swan Ranch
Impressed Current Rectifier Inspection” and explicitly states, “[r]ectifier provides CP for the
tanks and facility piping only.”5
Bridger’s Petition does not explain the apparent conflict between its original position that these
pipeline segments were subject to § 195.573(c) and its new position that the pipeline segments
were never subject to § 195.573(c). It also does not explain the conflict between its new position
and the evidence originally provided of rectifier records that Bridger claimed demonstrate the
same segments were brought into compliance with § 195.573(c).
Finally, Petitioner did not submit evidence that these pipeline segments are indeed protected by a
passive anode system, with no impressed current system (i.e., cathodic protection) in use.
Accordingly, I remain persuaded by the evidence in the case file, including Bridger’s original
admission and accompanying evidence that the pipeline segments at issue were in violation of
§ 195.573(c), as set forth in the Final Order.
For the above reasons, I decline to rescind or modify Item 11, therefore its accompanying civil
penalty remains in effect. I find that Bridger has not presented any new information or other
basis in its Petition to support a penalty reduction. The assessed civil penalty of $40,600 for this
3 Response, at 4, 9-11; Final Order at 7.
4 Response, at 4, 9-11; Final Order at 7.
5 Response, at 9-10.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 4
Item stands and Bridger’s petition on this Item is denied.
In addition, Bridger requested that PHMSA reconsider and rescind all other penalties assessed in
this matter due to the measures undertaken by Bridger to bring the facility into compliance and
the measures implemented to reduce the possibility of future violations. I do not find, however,
that such actions justify a civil penalty reduction. Bridger was ordered to take such actions to
remediate existing violations and the operator is expected to take any other measures necessary
to ensure future compliance with applicable safety standards. I therefore deny the Petition.
Conclusion
Based on a review of the record and the information provided in the Petition, I hereby deny the
Petition for the reasons set forth above.
All other terms of the Final Order remain in effect.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. 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. 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 $81,600 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.
This Decision constitutes final agency action taken by PHMSA in the enforcement proceeding.
The terms and conditions of this Decision are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
October 10, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520186004_Closure Letter_10302020_text.pdf

VIA E-MAIL TO MR. JOSHUA JAMISON
October 30, 2020
Mr. Joshua Jamison
Managing Member
Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC
2291 Renauna Avenue
Casper, WY 82601
CPF 5-2018-6004
Closure Letter
Dear Mr. Jamison:
On May 31, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order included a
finding of violation, Civil Penalty assessment and requirement to take corrective actions on your
pipeline. Based on PHMSA’s October 10, 2019 decision on your Petition for Reconsideration
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,
Dustin Hubbard
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 G. Ogirima

520186004_Final Order_05312019_text.pdf

May 31, 2019
Mr. Rich Fairservis
Chief Executive Officer
The Granite Peak Group
1300 Venture Way, Suite 200
Casper, Wyoming 82609
Re: CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Dear Mr. Fairservis:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case to your subsidiary,
Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC. It makes findings of violation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of
$81,600, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Bridger 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,
Western Region, this enforcement action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified
mail is effective upon the date of mailing, 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. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Patrick M. Knapp, Senior Counsel, Bridger Logistics, LLC, 6100 W. Plano Parkway,
Suite 1600, Plano, Texas 75093
Mr. Otis Randle, Vice President of Environmental Safety and Regulatory Compliance,
Bridger Environmental, LLC, 6100 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 1600, Plano, Texas
75093
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN 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 )
Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2018-6004
a subsidiary of The Granite Peak Group, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
______________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From August 29 through September 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative 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 Bridger
Swan Ranch, LLC’s (Bridger or Respondent), crude oil blending and tanking facility in
Cheyenne, Wyoming.1 The Bridger Swan Ranch Facility consists of five tanks totaling 225,000
barrels of blending and storage capacity for crude oil, 10 truck load/unload lanes, and pipeline
connections to the Cheyenne Rail Hub and Sinclair’s pipeline to Guernsey, Wyoming.2
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 28, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to 49
C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that
Bridger had committed five violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, one violation of Part 194, and
proposed assessing a civil penalty of $88,800 for the alleged violations. The Notice also
proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The
five warning items required no further action, but warned the operator to correct the probable
violations or face possible future enforcement action.
1 The NOPV was served on Bridger Logistics, LLC, and that company responded that it did not own or operate the
Bridger Swan Ranch Facility, but instead, the correct entity was Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC. Respondent Response
to Notice (Mar. 30, 2018) at 1, 5. I note that Respondent files its Annual Report with PHMSA under the name
Bridger Transfer Services, LLC, using OPID 39046. At the time of the inspection and issuance of the NOPV, both
Bridger Logistics, LLC, and Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, were subsidiaries of Ferrellgas, L.P. On August 1, 2018,
Bridger Logistics, LLC, and Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, were sold. https://globenewswire.com/news-
release/2018/08/01/1545902/0/en/Ferrellgas-Partners-L-P-Completes-Sale-of-Remaining-Bridger-Operations-and-
Global-Sourcing-Business html. Bridger Swan Ranch, LLC, was acquired by The Granite Peak Group.
http://www.granitepeakindustries.com/companies/swan-ranch-midstream/.
2 http://www.granitepeakindustries.com/companies/swan-ranch-midstream/.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 2
Bridger responded to the Notice by letter dated March 30, 2018 (Response). The company
contested the allegations, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested
that the proposed civil penalty be reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore
has waived its right to one. On October 23, 2018, Respondent submitted additional information
about its compliance actions and again requested that the proposed civil penalties be withdrawn
or reduced.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
Uncontested
In its Response, Bridger did not contest the following allegation in the Notice that it violated 49
C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a), which states:
§ 195.446 Control room management.
(a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline facility
with a controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all
or part of a pipeline facility through a SCADA system. Each operator must
have and follow written control room management procedures that
implement the requirements of this section. The procedures required by this
section must be integrated, as appropriate, with the operator’s written
procedures required by § 195.402. An operator must develop the procedures
no later than August 1, 2011, and must implement the procedures according
to the following schedule. The procedures required by paragraphs (b),
(c)(5), (d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section must be implemented no
later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by paragraphs (c)(l)
through (4), (d)(l), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no later than August
1, 2012. The training procedures required by paragraph (h) must be
implemented no later than August 1, 2012, except that any training required
by another paragraph of this section must be implemented no later than the
deadline for that paragraph.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.446(a) by failing to have and
follow written control room management procedures that implement the requirements of this
section. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger is the operator of a pipeline facility with a
controller working in a control room who monitors and controls all or part of its pipeline facility
through a SCADA system. At the time of the inspection, Bridger referenced a control room
management program in its Operations and Maintenance manual, but when PHMSA requested to
see this document, one could not be provided. Respondent did not contest this allegation of
violation.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.446(a) by failing to have and follow written control room management procedures



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 3
that implement the requirements of this section.
Contested
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(2), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a)…
(b) What program and practices must operators use to manage pipeline
integrity? Each operator of a pipeline covered by this section must: . . .
(2) Include in the program an identification of each pipeline or pipeline
segment in the first column of the following table not later than the date in
the second column:
Pipeline Date
Category 1………………….
Category 2……………...…..
Category 3………………….
December 31, 2001.
November 18, 2002.
Date the pipeline begins operation.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(2) by failing to include in
its program an identification of each pipeline segment that could affect a High Consequence
Area (HCA).3 Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger’s Integrity Management Program
(IMP) did not identify the Swan Ranch Facility pipeline segment as a hazardous liquid pipeline
that could affect a HCA. During the inspection, a National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS)
map overlay with the Swan Ranch Facility pipeline showed the entire pipeline segment was
within a drinking water resource, making it a pipeline that could affect an HCA.4 Furthermore,
this facility has been in service since November 2013 so it is a Category 3 pipeline, requiring that
HCAs be identified when the pipeline begins operation.5
3 According to 49 C.F.R. § 195.450, a “High Consequence Area” is (1) a commercially navigable waterway, (2) a
high population area, (3) an other populated area, or (4) an unusually sensitive area, as more specifically
defined in § 195.6.
4 According to 49 C.F.R § 195.6, an “Unusually Sensitive Area (USA)” means a drinking water or ecological
resource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline release. 49
C.F.R §195.6(a) defines a drinking water resource as “(1) The water intake for a Community Water System (CWS)
or a Non-Transient Non-Community Water System (NTNCWS) that obtains its water supply primarily from a
surface water source and does not have an adequate alternative drinking water source; (2) The Source Water
Protection Area (SWPA) for a CWS or a NTNCWS that obtains its water supply from a Class I or Class IIA aquifer
and does not have an adequate alternative drinking water source. Where a state has not yet identified the SWPA,
the Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) will be used until the state has identified the SWPA; or (3) The sole source
aquifer recharge area where the sole source aquifer is a karst aquifer in nature.” See also Exhibit I to Pipeline Safety
Violation Report (Violation Report), (Feb. 28, 2018) (on file with PHMSA).
5 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(a)(3).



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 4
In its Response, Bridger disputed this characterization. It stated that it had not violated
§ 195.452(b)(2) because it maintained an IMP since “before the Swan Ranch Facility became
operational.”6 Respondent contended that Section 6.1.1 of the IMP (Identification of HCAs) sets
forth Bridger’s procedures for identifying HCAs. Furthermore, Respondent maintained that
since the Swan Ranch Facility opened, its pipeline segments have been known to affect an HCA,
and personnel practiced proper procedures in accordance with the IMP.7
Having reviewed the record, I find that Bridger has an IMP which states that “The Company will
utilize the information provided by the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) or equivalent
sources to identify HCAs.” However, Bridger failed to provide any evidence that it had actually
done so. Although Bridger outlined a process for identifying HCAs in its IMP, it did not actually
identify which pipeline segments affect or could-affect these HCAs as required by
§ 195.452(b)(2). Bridger could not produce any NPMS maps, GIS data, or other maps to
demonstrate which pipeline segments were identified as those affecting HCAs or could affect
HCAs.8 Moreover, Bridger’s Vice President of Environmental Safety and Regulatory
Compliance stated that Bridger was unaware that the at-issue pipeline segment was in an HCA or
was part of Bridger’s IMP.9
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(b)(2) by failing to include in its IMP an identification of each pipeline segment that
could affect an HCA.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.101(a), which states:
§ 194.101 Operators required to submit plans.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, unless OPS
grants a request from a Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to require an
operator of a pipeline in paragraph (b) to submit a response plan, each
operator of an onshore pipeline facility shall prepare and submit a response
plan to PHMSA as provided in § 194.119. A pipeline which does not meet
the criteria for significant and substantial harm as defined in § 194.103(c)
and is not eligible for an exception under § 194.101(b), can be expected to
cause substantial harm. Operators of substantial harm pipeline facilities
must prepare and submit plans to PHMSA for review.
The Notice alleged that Respondent, who does not fall into an exception from the regulation,
violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.101(a) by failing to prepare and submit a response plan to PHMSA as
provided in § 194.119. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger had not filed a response plan
to PHMSA as of the date of the inspection.
6 Response, at 2.
7 Response, at 2.
8 Region Recommendation, at 2.
9 Violation Report, at 6; Region Recommendation, at 2.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 5
In its Response, Bridger stated that it “has maintained an Emergency Response Action Plan
(ERAP) for the facility since its commencement of operations in 2013. The ERAP has been
submitted to, and approved by, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”10
While Bridger may have filed its ERAP with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Bridger
is required by § 194.101(a) to prepare and submit a response plan to PHMSA that meets the
requirements established in 49 C.F.R. Part 194. Submitting a plan to another agency does not
serve as a substitute for compliance with PHMSA’s regulation.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 194.101(a) by failing to prepare and submit a response plan to PHMSA as provided in
§ 194.119.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b), which states:
§ 195.420 Valve maintenance.
(a)…
(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that
it is functioning properly.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect all
mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year.
Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, Bridger personnel did not
provide evidence that they had inspected any of their mainline valves during 2014 and 2016.
In its Response, Bridger enclosed records of valve inspections for 2015 and partial records of
valve inspections from 2016. It also stated that, it could not complete a second inspection in
2016 because custody transfer units at the facility were substantially upgraded and reworked that
year. The units, including all valves, passed a complete final safety inspection.11 Respondent
maintained that it has been in compliance with this regulation since calendar year 2017.
The 2015 valve inspection records are not pertinent in this case because the violation relates only
to the records for 2014 and 2016. Bridger failed to provide any records for 2014, and although it
submitted the records for one inspection of each valve in 2016, this does not show that
inspections took place as required twice during the calendar year. While the upgrading work
may have been the reason for Bridger’s lack of compliance, it does not excuse it, nor has
Respondent shown that the valves passing a later safety inspection achieved compliance with the
regulations.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.420(b) by failing to inspect all mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but
10 Response, at 3.
11 Response, at 3.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 6
at least twice each calendar year.
Item 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a), which states:
§ 195.412 Inspection of rights-of-way and crossings under navigable
waters.
(a) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least
26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent
to each pipeline right-of-way. Methods of inspection include walking,
driving, flying or other appropriate means of traversing the right-of-way.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the
surface conditions on and adjacent to its pipeline rights-of-way (ROW) at intervals not exceeding
3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Bridger
provided 17 driving ROW patrolling records for 2015 and 13 driving ROW patrolling records for
2014. During the inspection, Bridger personnel stated that the remaining records were not
available and failed to provide other substantiating evidence that the inspections were performed.
In its Response, Bridger did not contest the allegation that it inspected the pipeline ROW in 2014
and 2015 less often than required by the regulation. Respondent maintained that the ROW is
now being inspected at regular intervals in accordance with the regulations, and that it has
verified compliance as far back as calendar year 2016.12
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent to its pipeline ROW at
intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year.
Item 11: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c), which states, in
relevant part:
§ 195.573 What must I do to monitor external corrosion control?
(a)…
(c) Rectifiers and other devices. You must electrically check for proper
performance each device in the first column at the frequency stated in the
second column.
Device Check Frequency
Rectifier…………………. At least six times each calendar year, but
with intervals not exceeding 2½ months
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to perform
electrical checks on each rectifier at least six times each calendar year, but with intervals not
exceeding 2½ months for calendar years 2014 and 2015. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
during the inspection, Bridger personnel were unable to provide records demonstrating that it had
12 Response, at 4.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 7
performed electrical checks of its rectifiers at the required intervals.
In its Response, Bridger enclosed logs of certain rectifier checks that were performed in 2014,
2015, 2016, and 2017, but did not contest the allegation that it failed to perform checks at the
required intervals in 2014 and 2015. Bridger did not provide a credible justification for why it
did not comply with the regulatory requirement. It stated that it lacked records that two rectifier
checks were timely performed. Bridger verified that rectifier checks are now being performed in
compliance with applicable regulations, and verified compliance as far back as calendar year
2016.
Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.573(c) by failing to perform electrical checks on each rectifier at least six times each
calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding every 2½ months for calendar years 2014 and
2015.
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.13
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; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline
safety regulations. 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 $88,800 for the violations cited above.
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $30,900 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.420(b), for failing to inspect all mainline valves at intervals not exceeding 7½ months, but
at least twice each calendar year.
Bridger contested the proposed penalty, claiming that it “would substantially impair Bridger’s
ability to operate the Facility and continue in business,”14 and requested that the penalty be
reduced. It cited its then-parent company, Ferrellgas’s business losses, which led to layoffs,
13 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum
Civil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (Apr. 27, 2017).
14 Response, at 3.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 8
changes in senior management, and stock price decreases.15 On May 14, 2018, the Director,
Western Region, requested certain financial information from Bridger in order to more
thoroughly consider Bridger’s argument as it related to its ability to continue to conduct
business. Bridger did not respond or provide any documentation to support its claims.
I find that Bridger has not justified a reduction in the penalty on grounds that it would affect its
ability to continue doing business. In addition, I note that the nature of this violation was an
activity (failure to conduct inspections), the circumstances of the alleged violation were
discovered by PHMSA and not self-reported by the operator or reported by the public, the
gravity of the alleged violation was such that pipeline safety was compromised in an HCA, and
(as noted above) consideration of the operator’s culpability included that Bridger took action to
comply with the regulation, but did not achieve compliance. Finally, the operator’s failure to
comply was not due to a reasonable but incorrect interpretation of the requirement, and therefore
did not qualify for a good faith credit.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $30,900 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).
Item 6: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $10,100 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.412(a) by failing to inspect the surface conditions on and adjacent to its pipeline ROW at
intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year.
Bridger objected to the amount of this penalty, stating that “it is unreasonable, disregards
mitigating circumstances, is disproportionate to the findings, and would substantially impair
Bridger’s ability to conduct business at the Facility.”16 It also cited the reasoning discussed
above regarding its business standing.
I find that Bridger has not justified a reduction in the penalty. The proposed civil penalty amount
already recognizes that Bridger “took action to comply with a requirement but did not achieve
compliance,” thus decreasing the culpability assessment factor and overall penalty amount for
this violation item. In addition, I note that the nature of this violation was an activity, the
circumstances of the alleged violation were discovered by PHMSA and not self-reported by the
operator or reported by the public, the gravity of the alleged violation was a records violation,
and (as noted above) consideration of the operator’s culpability included that Bridger took action
to comply with the regulation, but did not achieve compliance. With respect to Respondent’s
contention that the penalty would affect its ability to continue doing business, I find Respondent
has not substantiated that claim as explained in Item 5.
Bridger admits that it did not comply with the ROW inspection regulation for 2014 and 2015.
Although some inspections were conducted, Bridger has not provided any evidence regarding
why it did not comply with the regulation. Inspections of ROWs are critical to ensuring the
pipeline’s integrity. A transmission pipeline ROW that is adequately maintained is an important
visual indicator of the existence of transmission pipeline facilities for anyone performing
15 Response, at 3.
16 Response, at 4.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 9
construction or other work near the pipeline. Further, a clear ROW enables operators to conduct
inspections and testing to verify pipeline integrity and to perform general maintenance and
repairs as needed.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $10,100 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.412(a).
Item 11: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $47,800 for Respondent’s violation of 49
C.F.R. § 195.573(c) by failing to perform electrical checks on each rectifier at least six times
each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding every 2½ months for calendar years 2014
and 2015.
In its response, Bridger argued that the penalty was “unreasonable, disregard[ed] mitigating
circumstances, is disproportionate to the findings, and would substantially impair Bridger’s
ability to conduct business at the facility.”17 It also cited the reasoning discussed above
regarding its business standing.
With respect to Respondent’s contention that the penalty would affect its ability to continue
doing business, I find Respondent has not substantiated that claim as explained in Item 5.
However, I find that a reduction in the penalty is appropriate under the culpability assessment
factor. As explained above, Bridger took action to comply with the requirement but did not
achieve full compliance. As a result, the original culpability assessment criterion should be
amended from Bridger “fail[ing] to take appropriate action to comply with a requirement that
was clearly applicable” to Bridger “took action to comply with a requirement but did not achieve
compliance.”
In addition, I note that the nature of this violation was an activity, the circumstances of the
alleged violation were discovered by PHMSA and not self-reported by the operator or reported
by the public, and the gravity of the alleged violation was such that pipeline safety was
compromised in an HCA. Finally, the operator’s failure to comply was not due to a reasonable
but incorrect interpretation of the requirement, and therefore did not qualify for a good faith
credit.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a reduced civil penalty of $40,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.573(c).
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 $81,600.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. 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
17 Response at 4.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 10
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 $81,600 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 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11 in the Notice
for violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(b)(2), 195.446(a), 194.101(a), 195.420(b), 195.412(a),
and 195.573(c), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.
Respondent has provided documentation that satisfies two of the Items. With regard to the
violation of § 195.446(a) (Item 2), Respondent provided additional copies of its written control
room management procedures onsite, and provided PHMSA with an updated copy. With regard
to the violation of § 195.573(c) (Item 11), Respondent provided records of rectifier electrical
checks in accordance with the Proposed Compliance Order. Accordingly, it is not necessary to
include the terms of the Proposed Compliance Order associated with these two Items.
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 § 195.452(b)(2) (Item 1), Respondent must
identify the Swan Ranch Facility as a pipeline that could affect a High Consequence
Area (HCA) in its written integrity management program within 30 days of the
issuance of the Final Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 194.101(a) (Item 3), Respondent must submit its
response plan for approval within 30 days of the issuance of the Final Order.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.420(b) (Item 5), Respondent must inspect
each mainline valve to determine it is functioning properly every 7 ½ months, but at
least twice each calendar year and submit the inspection records for 2017 to
PHMSA’s Western Region office within 30 days of the issuance of the Final Order.
4. With respect to the violation of § 195.412(a) (Item 6), Respondent must inspect
the surface condition on or adjacent to each pipeline right of way at intervals not
exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year and submit the inspection



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 11
records to PHMSA’s Western Region office within 30 days of the issuance 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.
It is requested (not mandated) 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 (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 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did
not propose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered
to be warning items. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 195.403(b) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to demonstrate
that it had conducted a review with personnel of their performance in meeting the
objectives of the company’s emergency response program, and had made
appropriate changes to the program as necessary to ensure that it was effective.
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to provide
baseline messages as part of a written continuing public education program
meeting the requirements of API 1162.
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) (Item 8) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to identify the
affected public as part of a written continuing public education program meeting
the requirements of API 1162.
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) (Item 9) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to establish a
continuing public education program meeting the requirements of API 1162.
49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) (Item 10) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to complete an
annual audit or review of its public education program meeting the requirements
of API 1162.



CPF No. 5-2018-6004
Page 12
Bridger presented information in its Response showing that it planned to take 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, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
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.
May 31, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

## Provenance

- Official: Yes
- Source: <https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520186004>
- Source ID: `phmsa-enforcement`
- SHA-256: `c22192ffe2201f0bf134b357df4da47c9ea9bebad5c575f8b758aa87004637a4`
- Retrieved: 2026-08-20T04:44:44.458Z
- Exported: 2026-08-23T04:20:21.964Z
- Document slug: `phmsa-enforcement-520186004`

### Source metadata

```json
{
  "cpf": "520186004",
  "operator": "BRIDGER SWAN RANCH, LLC",
  "region": "Western",
  "pipelineType": "INTRASTATE LIQUID ONSHORE",
  "caseStatus": "CLOSED",
  "citedSections": [
    "195.101(a)",
    "195.403(b)",
    "195.412(a)",
    "195.420(b)",
    "195.440(a)",
    "195.446(a)",
    "195.452(b)(2)",
    "195.573(c)"
  ],
  "dataAsOf": "08/04/2026 12PM",
  "caseDataAsOf": "2026-08-04",
  "attachmentCount": 10,
  "attachments": [
    {
      "name": "520186004_Closure Letter_10302020.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Closure%20Letter_10302020.pdf",
      "bytes": 234722,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_Closure Letter_10302020_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Closure%20Letter_10302020_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 71417,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_10102019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10102019.pdf",
      "bytes": 842998,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_10102019_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_10102019_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 119914,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_Final Order_05312019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Final%20Order_05312019.pdf",
      "bytes": 3466029,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_Final Order_05312019_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Final%20Order_05312019_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 182348,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_NOPV PCP PCO_02282018.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02282018.pdf",
      "bytes": 265978,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_NOPV PCP PCO_02282018_text.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_02282018_text.pdf",
      "bytes": 139137,
      "category": "agency_document"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_06172019.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_06172019.pdf",
      "bytes": 770616,
      "category": "party_submission"
    },
    {
      "name": "520186004_Operator Response to Notice_03302018.pdf",
      "url": "https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186004/520186004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03302018.pdf",
      "bytes": 220145,
      "category": "party_submission"
    }
  ],
  "extractedAgencyDocumentCount": 4,
  "attachmentPolicy": "Official attachment links are retained. Agency-issued documents may also include a verified local PDF and page-level text representation.",
  "jurisdiction": "US",
  "operatorName": "BRIDGER SWAN RANCH, LLC"
}
```