# ENLINK OHIO RIVER VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 320155009
- **title:** ENLINK OHIO RIVER VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2015-11-02
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.402(a), 195.452(f), 195.49.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155009.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155009.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-320155009
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/320155009
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving ENLINK OHIO RIVER VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.402(a),  195.452(f),  195.49. The case was opened on 2015-11-02 and is reported as closed as of 2018-01-18. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

320155009_Final Order_01182018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_Final%20Order_01182018.pdf

320155009_Final Order_01182018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_Final%20Order_01182018_text.pdf

320155009_NOPV PCO_11022015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_NOPV%20PCO_11022015.pdf

320155009_NOPV PCO_11022015_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_NOPV%20PCO_11022015_text.pdf

320155009_Operator Response to Notice and Request for Hearing_12302015.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/320155009/320155009_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice%20and%20Request%20for%20Hearing_12302015.pdf

320155009_Final Order_01182018_text.pdf

January 18, 2018
Mr. Barry E. Davis, CEO
EnLink Midstream
2501 Cedar Springs Road
Suite 100
Dallas, TX 75201
Re: CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Dear Mr. Davis:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It withdraws the
allegations of violation and the proposed compliance order against Ohio River Valley Pipeline,
LLC, a subsidiary of EnLink Midstream. This case is now closed. Service of the Final Order by
certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing, or as otherwise 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. Allan C. Beshore, Director, Central Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Vince Murchison, Counsel for Ohio River Valley Pipeline, LLC, Murchison Law
Firm, 325 North St. Paul Street Suite 2700, Dallas, Texas 75201
Mr. Mac Hummel, Executive Vice President, Ohio River Valley Pipeline, 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 )
Ohio River Valley Pipeline, LLC, ) CPF No. 3-2015-5009
a subsidiary of EnLink Midstream, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On December 10-14, 2012, 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 Ohio River Valley
Pipeline, LLC (ORV or Respondent), in Nashport, Ohio. ORV’s crude oil system consists of
64.87 miles of 6-inch and 8-inch pipeline running south from Killbuck, Ohio, to Nashport, Ohio,
continuing south to Sego, Ohio, Corning, Ohio, east to Lowell, Ohio, and southeast to the Ohio
River terminal. The system receives product from over-the-road tanker trucks, which deliver to
collection tanks at various locations. ORV is an affiliate of the EnLink Midstream companies,
EnLink Midstream Partners, LP and EnLink Midstream, LLC (the general partner).
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Central Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated November 2, 2015, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance
Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that ORV
had committed three violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations.
Respondent responded to the Notice by letter dated December 30, 2015 (Response). ORV
contested all of the allegations and requested a hearing. A hearing was subsequently held on
July 27, 2016, in Kansas City, Missouri, with an attorney from the Office of Chief Counsel,
PHMSA, serving as Presiding Official. At the hearing, Respondent was represented by counsel.
After the hearing, Respondent provided a post-hearing submission for the record, dated August
26, 2016 (Closing). OPS provided a recommendation dated November 21, 2016, and
Respondent submitted a reply dated January 27, 2017.



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The ORV system moves crude oil, which is collected and stored at Respondent’s Killbuck
Station near Killbuck, Holmes County, Ohio, then periodically moved in batches to Bells Run
Station near Marietta, Washington County, Ohio, a total distance of 126.08 miles. At
intervening stations, additional crude oil, and, at two locations, condensate, are collected and
stored, then periodically moved onto the ORV Pipeline.1 The crude oil moved on the ORV
Pipeline is produced as a mixture of crude petroleum, salt water (brine), and sediment. The
produced mixture is moved from wellsite tanks by trucks, which take the unprocessed mixture to
collection stations on the ORV Pipeline, where the mixture is offloaded into one or more tanks.
At some collection facilities, water is settled out while the mixture is held in these tanks.2
From the collection-station tanks, the product is then moved onto the ORV Pipeline in batches.
Lowell Station is configured such that it may receive previously separated crude from the
pipeline, as well as receive full well-stream production from trucks. Lowell is not configured,
however, to have separated water removed. This can result in the mixing of separated crude oil
with unseparated crude oil, all of which then is separated after movement to Bells Run. The
crude petroleum ultimately reaches ORV’s Bells Run facility. In addition to crude oil,
condensate (a hydrocarbon liquid similar to crude oil) is gathered at the Black Run and Bells Run
facilities, via truck transport. During the time the condensate is stored in the tanks, produced
water separates from the mixture and is then removed for disposal. At Bells Run, all crude oil
and condensate are prepared for further transportation by barge.
3
CLASSIFICATION OF THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY PIPELINE
In the Notice, OPS alleged that the pipeline was not a “gathering line” which would be subject
only to limited requirements in Part 195, but, rather, was a covered transmission line (or trunk
line) under § 195.1(a)(3) subject to all regulatory obligations of Part 195.4 During the hearing,
OPS explained that it did not consider the ORV Pipeline to be a gathering line because there was
no physical pipe connection to well production, but instead all product transported in the pipeline
was received from tanker trucks at collection stations along the pipeline.
Respondent contested OPS’ determination that the ORV Pipeline was not a gathering line. ORV
submits that the pipeline is a gathering line, with certain segments that are unregulated and
certain segments that are “regulated rural gathering lines” under 49 C.F.R. § 195.11 (two of these
are short segments which are subject to the full breadth of Part 195). Specifically, ORV testified
at the hearing that the 126-mile ORV Pipeline is a gathering line system pursuant to 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.1(a)(4)(i)-(ii), with 68.46 miles of regulated rural gathering line; two segments are fully
1 Closing at 4.
2 Closing at 5.
3 Closing at 5-6.
4 Notice at 2. “Transmission line” is a term that is not actually defined in § 195.2 of the hazardous liquid pipeline
safety regulations and is more commonly used with respect to natural gas pipelines covered by Part 192. However,
we use it here as a useful aid to help clarify the distinction with the term gathering line.



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 3
regulated under all subparts of Part 195, consisting of an approximately 1,700-foot segment
within the city limits of Brownsville, Ohio, and a 621-foot segment across the Muskingum River
between Lowell Station and Bells Run Station, a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation.
The parties agree that all three of the alleged violations in the Notice rest on this single issue:
whether the ORV Pipeline is a gathering line or a transmission line.
Analysis
1. Demarcation between production and transportation.
The applicable pipeline safety regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 195.2 define a “gathering line” as “a
pipeline 219.1 mm (8-5/8 inch) or less nominal outside diameter that transports petroleum from a
production facility.” Generally speaking, gathering lines tend to be smaller-diameter, low-
pressure pipelines typically located in remote areas.
The parties agree that the ORV Pipeline meets all of the size and pressure criteria for a
(regulated) gathering line set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 195.11(a) as follows:
(a) Definition. As used in this section, a regulated rural
gathering line means an onshore gathering line in a rural area that
meets all of the following criteria—
(1) Has a nominal diameter from 6⅝ inches (168 mm) to 8⅝
inches (219.1 mm);
(2) Is located in or within one-quarter mile (.40 km) of an
unusually sensitive area as defined in §195.6; and
(3) Operates at a maximum pressure established under §195.406
corresponding to—
(i) A stress level greater than 20-percent of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe; or
(ii) If the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not
constructed with steel pipe, a pressure of more than 125 psi (861
kPa) gage.
Therefore, the question of whether the ORV Pipeline is properly classified as a gathering
pipeline or a transmission pipeline depends on whether the ORV Pipeline “transports petroleum
from a production facility,” as that phrase is used in 49 C.F.R. § 195.2.
A “production facility,” in turn, is defined in § 195.2 as:
. . . [P]iping or equipment used in the production, extraction,
recovery, lifting, stabilization, separation or treating of petroleum or
carbon dioxide, or associated storage or measurement. (To be a
production facility under this definition, piping or equipment must
be used in the process of extracting petroleum or carbon dioxide
from the ground or from facilities where CO2 is produced, and



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 4
preparing it for transportation by pipeline. This includes piping
between treatment plants which extract carbon dioxide, and
facilities utilized for the injection of carbon dioxide for recovery
operations.)5
As an initial matter, the parties disagreed about whether the trucks used to move the oil to the
collection stations on the ORV pipeline were “equipment” used in the production of the oil.
OPS contended that the trucks used to move product from the well sites to the collection stations
on the pipeline do not meet the regulatory definition of “equipment” because the trucks are not
connected to the ground. Based on its conclusion that the trucks are not production equipment,
OPS believes that the product does not come “from a production facility.”6
In response, ORVP argued that the trucks should be considered to be production equipment,
making them part of the production facility and thus negating OPS’ argument that the oil does
not come from a production facility. ORV provided many common definitions of the term
“equipment,” including Black's Law Dictionary Online Legal Dictionary. It defines equipment
as “[t]ools, be they devices, machines, or vehicles” to “assist a person in achieving an action
beyond the normal capabilities of a human.” ORV argued that trucks are used commonly to
move crude oil from wellsites to processing facilities.7 ORV explained that the crude oil is
collected in tanks along the system, then stored in tanks where separation and stabilization may
occur until a batch is moved onto the ORV Pipeline.8 ORV noted that the collection stations
where crude oil is collected into tanks perform some of the same functions as some oil
production facilities. For example, water, is separated from the crude oil and removed from the
tanks at different stations for disposal into injection wells.
Having considered both parties’ arguments on the issue of whether the trucks used to move the
oil from the well sites to the collection stations on the ORV Pipeline are equipment used to
produce the oil, I find that ORV’s argument that these trucks are part of the production facility
(i.e., the well) is inconsistent with the purpose of these definitions in establishing a demarcation
between production and transportation. The Part 195 definition of “production facility” is
mainly focused on the extraction function. Under the federal statutory and regulatory structure,
however, gathering is transportation. The fact that some functions, such as water removal, that
are done at some gathering facilities are also done at some production facilities is not dispositive,
5 49 C.F.R. § 195.2. Production facilities are facilities necessary to perform tasks of extracting and “preparing the
petroleum for transportation by pipeline (stabilization, separation, treating, storage, measurement).” As directed by
the preamble to the Final Rule, the function of the facility determines (along with the size of the pipe) whether the
facility is a production facility.
6 Region Recommendation at 2.
7 Closing at 26.
8 ORV argued that in its view the collection stations on the pipeline were production facilities. Closing at 12-13.



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 5
because water removal and other treatment and processing steps can also be done after oil leaves
a production facility and enters the stream of transportation.9 Secondly, OPS correctly pointed
out that over-the-road trucking is itself a mode of transportation. Each truck would be subject to
its own regulatory requirements elsewhere in the CFR for motor carriers, as well as specific
regulations that apply to the transportation of flammable liquids by truck.10 Asking PHMSA, an
agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, to designate these trucks as production
equipment rather than transportation would create inconsistencies in the applicability of the
existing regulatory frameworks for truck transportation. Transportation is simply the movement
of something from one location to another, which is the function of these trucks.11 On balance,
ORV is not persuasive that trucks used to transport product from well sites over public roads are
production equipment for purposes of the § 195.2 definition of “production facility.” Therefore,
I do not make such a finding here.
2. Applicability of the regulatory “gathering line” definition to the functional configuration
of the ORV system.
The determinative issue in this case is whether, despite ORV’s argument about the trucks being
production equipment being incorrect, OPS has carried its burden of establishing that ORV
committed the alleged violations in the Notice by improperly classifying the pipeline as a
gathering line.
As noted above, the applicable pipeline safety regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 195.2 define a
“gathering line” as “a pipeline 219.1 mm (8⅝ inch) or less nominal outside diameter that
transports petroleum from a production facility.” Generally speaking, gathering lines tend to be
smaller-diameter, low-pressure pipelines typically located in remote areas that collect crude oil
and move it downstream for further transportation.12 The OPV Pipeline meets the typical
characteristics and functions of a gathering line.
OPS maintained that any pipeline not directly connected to a well cannot be considered a
gathering line but must be classified as a transmission line, despite meeting all of the size and
pressure-related criteria for classification as a gathering line. ORV argued that the ORV Pipeline
is eight inches in diameter or less, transports petroleum, and therefore would be a gathering line
as long as it is transporting the petroleum “from a production facility,” regardless of whether it is
directly connected to a well.
9 In this case, the trucks are owned and operated by ORV. However, it appears that there is nothing stopping a well
owner or operator from selling its oil to a truck transportation company that neither produces oil nor operates any
pipelines but simply transports oil from the well to a pipeline station for further transportation.
10 See 49 C.F.R. Parts 350-399.
11 The truck is actually performing the same function as a gathering pipeline in that it is receiving product directly
from the well and then delivering that product to a collection point, where it is combined with product from other
wells and further transported. Thus, these trucks can be seen as an early step in the overall gathering process that
ORV has in place and that involves trucks, tanks and pipelines.
12 The regulatory scheme exempts or imposes lighter regulations on gathering lines, on the basis that they are
generally thought to have lower risk than transmission lines and generally would have lower consequences in the
event of a failure.



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 6
In support of its position, ORV cited an agency interpretation letter that had been issued by
PHMSA and was available to operators on PHMSA’s website. Specifically, ORV cited the
EOTT interpretation letter, in which PHMSA concluded that the crude oil pipeline was a non-
regulated gathering line under § 195.1(b)(4) because it was “less than 8⅝ inches in nominal
outside diameter, transports petroleum from a production facility, and [was] located in a rural
area”.13 This interpretation involved a system in which the requester explained that “Oil is
gathered from production facilities… [and] enters the gathering system at three other locations...
The gathering system [has] a truck injection pipeline at Rhame Station and at one other location
before it gets to Baker Station, which … does not change the character of the downstream line
from gathering.”14 In its interpretation letter, PHMSA determined that the system was a
gathering system, stating that it “agrees…that the EOTT crude oil pipeline system from Rhame
Station in North Dakota to Baker Station in Montana is a non-regulated gathering line under
§195.1(b)(4) because it is less than 8⅝ inches in nominal outside diameter, transports petroleum
from a production facility, and is located in a rural area.”15 ORV argued that the functional
configuration of the ORV Pipeline system was substantially similar to the EOTT pipeline system
and therefore should also be classified as a gathering line.
OPS also pointed to interpretation letters that it believed would support its position. OPS cited
the Brooks Range Petroleum interpretation letter, in which the operator requested confirmation
that a 6-inch oil pipeline was a gathering line and therefore not subject to Part 195. PHMSA
determined that the pipeline was subject to Part 195, stating that because “it does not extend
directly from a well or production facility…it is not exempt as a production or gathering line.”
OPS also cited a Questar interpretation letter which “determined that a line which receives
petroleum from a truck-unloading facility, among other line characteristics, would be regulated
under Part 195.” However, the determining factor in PHMSA finding that the line was not a
gathering line was a different criterion: the specified minimum yield strength of the pipe.
PHMSA’s interpretation letters “reflect the agency’s current application of the regulations to the
specific facts presented by the person requesting the clarification.”16 Interpretations therefore
provide guidance in understanding PHMSA’s regulations; however, they do not carry the weight
of law. When presented with an interpretation with similar facts to the case at-issue, that
interpretation generally should be given more weight than one with dissimilar facts. For
purposes of the issue in this case, I find that the EOTT interpretation letter has more relevance
than the letters cited by OPS given its parallels to ORV’s system, including the use of trucks.
While the Brooks Range interpretation did appear to offer some support for OPS’ position, ORV
argued persuasively that the ORV Pipeline is configured the same as the EOTT gathering line
and functions largely the same as the EOTT gathering line.
More significantly, the record in this case demonstrates that PHMSA has never promulgated a
regulation or even authoritative guidance clearly establishing that a pipeline that is not directly
13 Mr. David Johnson, PHMSA Interp. No. PI-03-0103 (June 11, 2003) (available at www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/
regs/ interps) (EOTT Interpretation).
14 EOTT Interpretation.
15 EOTT Interpretation.
16 See www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/interps.



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 7
connected to a well cannot be a gathering line and must be classified as a transmission line,
despite meeting all of the size- and risk-related criteria for classification as a gathering line. OPS
did not establish that there was any formalized limitation on the definition of a gathering line that
imposed the additional requirement of direct physical connection by pipe to a well. All oil
moving in the gathering process comes “from a production facility.” The applicable regulations
do not bar any pipeline that begins at a point other than a well, such as a collection point fed by
trucks, from being a gathering line. Rather, the agency declined to name every pipeline that
begins at a truck unloading station to be a gathering line.
In addition, it appears clear from the record that the line has never been treated as a transmission
line by its operators or by OPS. Rather it has been treated as a gathering line for the last 37
years. OPS provided no information in the record establishing that the agency has historically
treated this or any other lines like the ORV Pipeline as transmission lines. For example, OPS did
not cite even one prior enforcement case where an operator of a truck-supplied gathering line
was found to have violated any regulation in Part 195 that was applicable to non-gathering lines.
Under circumstances where an agency is using an enforcement proceeding that would penalize
an operator and seeks to change the status quo in how a given type of facility has apparently been
treated in the past, that agency is obligated to provide notice to affected operators. The phrase
“from a production facility” does not provide an operator with any certainty on the issue of
whether a direct pipe connection is required or not and the guidance issued by OPS in the form
of interpretation letters is conflicting at best. Even if OPS has reason to believe that lines like the
ORV Pipeline should begin to be classified as transmission lines, it remains bound by the “fair
notice” standard.
Finally, while not legally dispositive, ORV presented testimony at the hearing that if the use of
trucks to supply small pipelines like the OPV Pipeline would suddenly cause them to become
fully regulated transmission lines, it could cause significant impacts on the ability of small well
drillers to get their products to market. Many operators of small gathering systems that service
small drilling operations could face significant new cost burdens if all of these lines suddenly
had to be treated as fully regulated transmission lines.17 Basic fairness dictates that if OPS wants
to bar any pipeline that begins at a point other than a well (such as a collection point fed by
trucks) from being classified as a gathering line, it should undertake appropriate administrative
proceedings to accomplish that in an unambiguous fashion with advance notice to regulated
parties.18
Based on the foregoing, I find that OPS did not establish that the ORV Pipeline was improperly
classified as a (regulated) gathering line.
Finally, it should be emphasized that this determination, i.e., that the ORV Pipeline is a gathering
line, does not mean that the pipeline is entirely unregulated. ORV has conceded that certain
portions of its pipeline are regulated gathering lines subject to the basic safety requirements
17 Hearing Transcript at 173-175.
18 OPS acknowledged at the hearing that some of the jurisdictional diagrams available online that operators might
refer to as part of making their line classifications had undergone changes in the months before the NOPV was
issued.



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 8
found in § 195.11(b). If OPS believes that any portions of this gathering system were not
designated by ORV as “regulated gathering” but should have been, OPS is free to revisit that
issue in a future proceeding.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
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. § 195.49, which states
§ 195.49 Annual report.
Each operator must annually complete and submit DOT Form PHMSA
F7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility operated at the
end of the previous year. An operator must submit the annual report by June
15 each year, except that for the 2010 reporting year the report must be
submitted by August 15, 2011. A separate report is required for crude oil,
HVL (including anhydrous ammonia), petroleum products, carbon dioxide
pipelines, and fuel grade ethanol pipelines. For each state a pipeline
traverses, an operator must separately complete those sections on the form
requiring information to be reported for each state.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.49 by failing to complete and
submit DOT Form PHMSA F7000-1.1 for each type of hazardous liquid pipeline facility
operated at the end of the previous year. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ORV’s annual
reports had been submitted on the premise that the pipeline was a regulated rural gathering line
and therefore did not reflect the status of the ORV Pipeline as a pipeline subject to the scope of
all subparts of 49 CFR 195.
In its Response, at the hearing, and in its Closing, ORV contested the alleged violation. It stated
that “the regulated segments of Respondent’s pipeline are regulated rural gathering lines,” and
therefore, it was in compliance with Part 195 reporting requirements.
As discussed above, I find that the ORV Pipeline is a gathering line. Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that ORV has not violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.49 as alleged in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item
1 be withdrawn.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a), which states:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) General. Each operator shall prepare and follow for each pipeline system
a manual of written procedures for conducting normal operations and maintenance
activities and handling abnormal operations and emergencies. This manual shall
be reviewed at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar
year, and appropriate changes made as necessary to insure that the manual is
effective. This manual shall be prepared before initial operations of a pipeline
system commence, and appropriate parts shall be kept at locations where



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 9
operations and maintenance activities are conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) by failing to implement a
manual of written procedures with regard to the full scope of Part 195 before the pipeline system
went into operation. Specifically, the Notice alleged that the procedures in place at the time of
inspection were inadequate because the manual included only procedures for implementing the
safety requirements in § 195.11(b) for regulated rural gathering lines and did not include written
procedures for a pipeline subject to all subparts of 49 C.F.R. Part 195.
In its Response, ORV disputed the allegation. It stated that the ORV Pipeline was a gathering
line and therefore not required to include written procedures for a pipeline subject to all subparts
of 49 CFR 195 in its manual. ORV further stated that there was no allegation that ORV failed to
have or follow written procedures for the safety requirements in § 195.11(b) for regulated rural
gathering lines
As discussed above, I find that the ORV Pipeline is a gathering line. Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that ORV has not violated
49 C.F.R. § 402(a) as alleged in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2
be withdrawn.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f), which states:
§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.
(a) …
(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An
integrity management program begins with the initial framework. An
operator must continually change the program to reflect operating
experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,
and other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of
consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must
include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity
management program:
(1) A process for identifying which pipeline segments could affect a
high consequence area;
(2) A baseline assessment plan meeting the requirements of paragraph
(c) of this section;
(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the
integrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (se
paragraph (g) of this section);
(4) Criteria for remedial actions to address integrity issues raised by the
assessment methods and information analysis (see paragraph (h) of this
section);
(5) A continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain a
pipeline's integrity (see paragraph (j) of this section);
(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the
high consequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section);



CPF No. 3-2015-5009
Page 10
(7) Methods to measure the program’s effectiveness (see paragraph (k)
of this section);
(8) A process for review of integrity assessment results and information
analysis by a person qualified to evaluate the results and information (see
paragraph (h)(2) of this section).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f) by failing to have a written
integrity management program in place. Specifically, the Notice alleged that ORV’s pipeline
system was operated as a gathering line and not operating under the framework of an integrity
management program.
In its Response, ORV disputed the allegation. It stated that the at issue pipeline was a regulated
rural gathering line, and therefore, it was not required to develop and implement a written
integrity management program under 49 C.F.R. § 95.452(f).
As discussed above, I find that the ORV Pipeline is a gathering line. Accordingly, after
considering all of the evidence and the legal issues presented, I find that ORV has not violated
49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f) as alleged in the Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that
Item 3 be withdrawn.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1, 2, and 3 in the Notice for the
alleged violations of 49 C.F.R. § 195. 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.
As discussed above, I have withdrawn the alleged violations. Therefore, the proposed
compliance order is also withdrawn.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with
49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
January 18, 2018
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 31777