{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 420165032","title":"PANTHER OPERATING COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2016-09-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.404(a)(3), 195.404(a)(4), 195.452(f)(3), 195.452(f)(5), 195.452(f)(6), 195.452(i)(1), 195.452(j)(1), 195.452(j)(3), 195.64(c)(2)(v).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165032.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165032.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420165032","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420165032","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PANTHER OPERATING COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.404(a)(3),  195.404(a)(4),  195.452(f)(3),  195.452(f)(5),  195.452(f)(6),  195.452(i)(1),  195.452(j)(1),  195.452(j)(3),  195.64(c)(2)(v). The case was opened on 2016-09-29 and is reported as closed as of 2018-03-13. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n420165032_Closure Letter_03132018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165032/420165032_Closure%20Letter_03132018.pdf\n\n420165032_Closure Letter_03132018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165032/420165032_Closure%20Letter_03132018_text.pdf\n\n420165032_Final Order_03032017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165032/420165032_Final%20Order_03032017.pdf\n\n420165032_Final Order_03032017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165032/420165032_Final%20Order_03032017_text.pdf\n\n420165032_NOPV PCO_09292016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165032/420165032_NOPV%20PCO_09292016.pdf\n\n420165032_NOPV PCO_09292016_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165032/420165032_NOPV%20PCO_09292016_text.pdf\n\n420165032_Operator Response to Notice_10242016.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420165032/420165032_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_10242016.pdf\n\n420165032_Closure Letter_03132018_text.pdf\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMarch 13, 2018\nJeffrey H. Parrish\nPresident\nPanther Operating Company, LLC\n16000 Steubner Airline, Suite 420\nSpring, Texas 77379\nCPF 4-2016-5032\nDear Mr. Parrish:\nOn March 3, 2017, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Panther Operating Company, LLC a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Final Order\nincluded a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the documentation provided and reviewed\nat Panther’s Texas City office, it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of\nthis Order.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nMary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nDirector, Southwest Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n420165032_Final Order_03032017_text.pdf\n\nMarch 3, 2017\nMr. Jeffrey H. Parrish\nPresident\nPanther Operating Company, LLC\n16000 Steubner Airline\nSuite 420\nSpring, Texas 77379\nRe: CPF No. 4-2016-5032\nDear Mr. Parrish:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and specifies actions that need to be taken by Panther Operating Company, LLC to\ncomply with the pipeline safety regulations. When the terms of the compliance order have been\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Southwest Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is deemed effective upon the date of mailing,\nor as otherwise provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. R.M. Seeley, Director, Southwest Region, PHMSA, OPS\nMr. Luiz Guzman, Vice President and Secretary, Panther Operating Co., LLC,\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nPanther Operating Company, LLC, ) CPF No. 4-2016-5032\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nOn October 27, 2014 to February 5, 2015, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Panther\nOperating Company, LLC (Panther or Respondent), in Texas City, Texas. Panther is an oil and\ngas pipeline contract operator with operations primarily in the Gulf of Mexico.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated September 29, 2016, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed\nCompliance Order (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that Panther had committed\nvarious violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195 and proposed ordering Respondent to take certain\nmeasures to correct the alleged violations. The warning item required no further action, but\nwarned the operator to correct the probable violation or face possible enforcement action.\nPanther responded to the Notice by letter dated October 24, 2016 (Response). Panther contested\none of the allegations and offered additional information in response to the Notice. Respondent\ndid not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nContested Item\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, which states in\nrelevant part:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 2\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to\nmaintain a pipeline’s integrity? —\n(1) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment, an\noperator must continue to assess the line pipe at specified intervals and\nperiodically evaluate the integrity of each pipeline segment that could affect\na high consequence area.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(1) by failing to complete the\nreassessment of the pipeline at the required interval. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Panther\nfailed to properly establish an interval for reassessing the pipeline within a five-year period, not\nto exceed a 68-month interval.1 The Texas City to High Island Platform 454 segment had its\nbaseline assessment in 2007 and Panther had not performed another assessment as of February\n2015.\nIn its Response, Panther stated that a successful in-line inspection (ILI) run had been completed\non the pipeline in December 2007, making the next reassessment due no later than August 2013\n(68 months). Panther therefore scheduled, and began, the five-year reassessment process in\nAugust 2012 by launching a sizing plate in preparation for the next ILI run. Due to technical\nissues and unavailable equipment from the ILI vendor, Panther encountered various delays\nbefore a successful ILI run was completed on June 9, 2015. Panther notified PHMSA of this\nsequence of tasks and delays by correspondence dated September 22, 2015.\nPanther argued that the reassessment process had begun within the required time, and due to\nissues beyond Panther's control, the completed process exceeded the five-year timeframe. As the\nILI run has now been completed and inspection data made available to Panther in September\n2015, Respondent requested that this item be withdrawn from the Notice and Compliance Order.\nOPS disagreed with Panther's assertion that because the reassessment process began with a sizing\nplate tool run in August 2012, a year before the August 2013 due date, that it had met the\nrequirement of having a reassessment within the five-year interval.2 OPS stated that performing\na sizing plate tool run is insufficient to be considered a completed assessment. Where internal\ninspection is the chosen assessment method, completing a reassessment requires both a metal\nloss and deformation tool runs. Therefore, OPS argued that the reassessment was completed\nwhen Panther ran an ILI tool on June 9, 2015.\nOperators are required to complete assessments of line pipe integrity every five years, not to\nexceed 68 months. Pipeline safety regulations allow for variance from the five-year interval in\ncertain limited situations. Where an operator faces delays due to unavailable technology, it\n“must notify OPS 180 days before the end of the five-year (or less) interval that the operator may\nrequire a longer assessment interval, and provide an estimate of when the assessment can be\n1 The Notice and Region Recommendation, issued Nov. 14, 2016, included an inadvertent error stating the interval\nas “58 months.” The error was not material to the proposed violation or this Order’s findings.\n2 Region Recommendation at 2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 3\ncompleted.”3 The operator must “justify the reasons why it cannot comply with the required\nassessment period and must also demonstrate the actions it is taking to evaluate the integrity of\nthe pipeline segment in the interim.”4 Pipeline integrity is one of the most important factors in\nensuring the safety and reliability of a pipeline, and the intervals between assessments must be\nadhered to by operators.\nIn this case, Panther was aware that it faced “technical issues and unavailable equipment” in\nadvance of the August 2013 deadline for completing its reassessment. Panther was required to\ninform “OPS 180 days before the end of the five-year (or less) interval that [it] may require a\nlonger assessment interval,” due to the technical issues and unavailable ILI equipment. It did\nnot, however, inform PHMSA of these issues or the reason why it had missed the deadline until\nSeptember 22, 2015, three months after completing the reassessment and 25 months after the\nAugust 2013 deadline. Accordingly, after considering all of the evidence, I find that Respondent\nviolated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(1) by failing to complete the reassessment of the pipeline at the\nrequired interval.\nUncontested Items\nIn its Response, Panther did not contest the allegations in the Notice associated with Items 2, 3,\n5, 6, and 7 that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.404 Maps and records.\n(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its\npipeline systems that include at least the following information:\n(1) . . .\n(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.\n(4) The diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of all pipe.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3)-(a)(4) by failing to\nmaintain current records of its pipeline system to include the maximum operating pressure\n(MOP) and the diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of the pipe. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that when asked during the inspection, Panther provided an MOP Calculation\nForm for the segment from the “platform 474 to their [sic] facility at Texas City, TX.” When\nMOP calculation forms for other segments for Panther’s system were requested, Respondent\nprovided a table showing the MOP for its 33 other segments. Panther could not provide the\nactual MOP calculations along with other documentation to substantiate the MOP for each\nsection of pipe. Furthermore, the table was not sufficient to demonstrate that the pipe’s\nmanufacturer specification records, pipe mill records, pipe yield strength, seam type, wall\nthickness, and diameter pipe specifications had been verified by Panther to calculate the MOP.\n3 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(4)(ii).\n4 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(4)(ii).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 4\nPanther also provided transcribed records which could not be validated with original records of\nits High Island 474 to East Break 165 12-inch pipeline to verify the pipeline specifications. The\npipeline was constructed in 1986 and no original or copies of the manufacturer specification\nrecords, pipe mill records, purchase requisitions, or as-built documentation indicating pipe yield\nstrength, seam type, wall thickness and diameter were provided.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3)-(a)(4) by failing to\nmaintain current records of its pipeline system to include the maximum operating pressure and\nthe diameter, grade, type, and nominal wall thickness of the pipe.\nItem 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3), which states:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) . . .\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to\nmaintain pipeline’s integrity? —\n(1) . . .\n(3) Assessment intervals. An operator must establish five-year\nintervals, not to exceed 68 months, for continually assessing the line pipe’s\nintegrity. An operator must base the assessment intervals on the risk the\nline pipe poses to the high consequence area to determine the priority for\nassessing the pipeline segments. An operator must establish the assessment\nintervals based on the factors specified in paragraph (e) of this section, the\nanalysis of the results from the last integrity assessment, and the\ninformation analysis required by paragraph (g) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3) by failing to establish\nfive-year intervals, not to exceed 68 months, for continually assessing the line pipe’s integrity.\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that Panther failed to establish a five-year reassessment interval\nfor continually assessing the line pipe’s integrity on the Texas City to High Island Platform 454\nsegment. The baseline assessment on the high consequence area (HCA) segment was performed\nby the previous operator in December 2007. Panther acquired the pipeline after 2007 but failed\nto establish the reassessment interval. Panther did not conduct a reassessment on the\naforementioned segment as of February 2015.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3) by failing to establish\nfive-year intervals, not to exceed 68 months, for continually assessing the line pipe’s integrity.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 5\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,\nand other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of\nconsequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator\nmust include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written\nintegrity management program:\n(1) . . .\n(3) An analysis that integrates all available information about the\nintegrity of the entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure (see\nparagraph (g) of this section); . . .\nand\n(g) What is an information analysis? In periodically evaluating the\nintegrity of each pipeline segment (paragraph (j) of this section), an\noperator\nmust analyze all available information about the integrity of the entire\npipeline and the consequences of a failure. This information includes:\n(1) Information critical to determining the potential for, and preventing,\ndamage due to excavation, including current and planned damage\nprevention activities, and development or planned development along the\npipeline segment;\n(2) Data gathered through the integrity assessment required under this\nsection;\n(3) Data gathered in conjunction with other inspections, tests,\nsurveillance and patrols required by this Part, including, corrosion control\nmonitoring and cathodic protection surveys; and\n(4) Information about how a failure would affect the high consequence\narea, such as location of the water intake.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3) by failing to perform an\nanalysis that integrated all available information about the integrity of its entire pipeline and the\nconsequences of a failure, as required by §§ 195.452(f)(3) and 195.452(g). Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that Panther failed to perform an analysis that integrated all available information\nabout the integrity of its entire pipeline and the consequences of a failure as required by\n§§ 195.452(f)(3) and 195.452(g), including its Texas City facility, valves, and other\nappurtenances connected to line pipe. Panther’s Mechanical Integrity Program, Section 2.3.7\nstates: “A formalized risk assessment will be conducted on all applicable transmission\npipelines.” Panther could not produce evidence to show a risk assessment was ever performed\nand executed since taking over operation of the pipeline.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(3) by failing to perform\nan analysis that integrated all available information about the integrity of its entire pipeline and\nthe consequences of a failure, as required by §§ 195.452(f)(3) and 195.452(g).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 6\nItem 6: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, which states, in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(e) What are the risk factors for establishing an assessment schedule\n(for both the baseline and continual integrity assessments)? (1) An operator\nmust establish an integrity assessment schedule that prioritizes pipeline\nsegments for assessment (see paragraphs (d)(1) and (j)(3) of this section).\nAn operator must base the assessment schedule on all risk factors that reflect\nthe risk conditions on the pipeline segment. The factors an operator must\nconsider include, but are not limited to:\n(i) Results of the previous integrity assessment, defect type and size that\nthe assessment method can detect, and defect growth rate;\n(ii) Pipe size, material, manufacturing information, coating type and\ncondition, and seam type;\n(iii) Leak history, repair history and cathodic protection history;\n(iv) Product transported;\n(v) Operating stress level;\n(vi) Existing or projected activities in the area;\n(vii) Local environmental factors that could affect the pipeline (e.g.,\ncorrosivity of soil, subsidence, climatic);\n(viii) geo-technical hazards; and\n(ix) Physical support of the segment such as by a cable suspension\nbridge.\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,\nand other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of\nconsequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity\nmanagement program:\n(1) . . .\n(5) A continual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain a\npipeline’s integrity (see paragraph (j) of this section); . . .\nand\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to\nmaintain pipeline’s integrity? — (1) General. After completing the\nbaseline integrity assessment, an operator must continue to assess the\nline pipe at specified intervals and periodically evaluate the integrity of\neach pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 7\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(5) by failing to develop a\ncontinual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain the pipeline’s integrity, as required\nby §§ 195.452(f)(5) and 195.452(j). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Panther could not\nproduce evidence to show a continual process of assessment and evaluation was ever performed\nand executed since taking over operation of the pipeline. Panther could not produce evidence to\nshow the frequency of evaluation and assessment intervals were based on risk factors specific to\nits pipeline including the factors specified in § 195.452(e).\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(5) by failing to develop a\ncontinual process of assessment and evaluation to maintain the pipeline’s integrity, as required\nby § 195.452(f)(5) and 195.452(j).\nItem 7: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452, which states in\nrelevant part:\n§ 195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(a) ….\n(f) What are the elements of an integrity management program? An\nintegrity management program begins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the program to reflect operating\nexperience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity assessments,\nand other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of\nconsequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator must\ninclude, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written integrity\nmanagement program:\n(1) . . .\n(6) Identification of preventive and mitigative measures to protect the\nhigh consequence area (see paragraph (i) of this section); . . .\nand\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take\nto protect the high consequence area? — (1) General requirements. An\noperator must take measures to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a\npipeline failure that could affect a high consequence area. These measures\ninclude conducting a risk analysis of the pipeline segment to identify\nadditional actions to enhance public safety or environmental protection.\nSuch actions may include, but are not limited to, implementing damage\nprevention best practices, better monitoring of cathodic protection where\ncorrosion is a concern, establishing shorter inspection intervals, installing\nEFRDs on the pipeline segment, modifying the systems that monitor\npressure and detect leaks, providing additional training to personnel on\nresponse procedures, conducting drills with local emergency responders\nand adopting other management controls.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 8\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6) by failing to identify\npreventive or mitigative measures to protect the high consequence area as a part of its integrity\nmanagement program. Specifically, the Notice alleged that Panther failed to conduct a proper\nrisk analysis of the pipeline segment to identify additional actions to enhance public safety or\nenvironmental protection. Its documentation demonstrated a lack of proper risk analysis to\nidentify the need for additional preventive and mitigative measures to protect HCAs.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(f)(6) by failing to identify\npreventive or mitigative measures to protect the high consequence area as a part of its integrity\nmanagement program.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for violations\nof 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.404(a), 195.452(j)(3), 195.452(j)(1), 195.452(f)(3), 195.452(f)(5), and\n195.452(f)(6), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nThe Director has indicated that Respondent has taken the following actions to address one of the\ncited violations: Panther has completed the reassessment as required by Paragraph 3 of the\nProposed Compliance Order and submitted a notification to PHMSA.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to this violation. Therefore,\nthe compliance terms proposed in the Notice for Item 4 (Paragraph 3 of the Proposed\nCompliance Order) is not included in this Order.\nAs for the remaining compliance terms, pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49\nC.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with\nthe pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a) (Item 2), Respondent must locate or\nacquire the records from the previous owner or if that is not an option Panther must\ndevelop a plan to replicate the necessary information such that is can be used to\ndetermine MOP and other integrity evaluations. Panther must:\na. Verify flange and pipe fittings on pipeline system at the platform and\nonshore facilities to commensurate with the MOP.\nb. Verify pipe wall thickness of the piping on the platform and at the onshore\nfacility by measuring the thickness at quarter points around the pipe.\nc. Degrade pipeline yield strength to 24,000 psi or verify pipeline yield\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 9\nstrength by performing all of the tensile tests of API Specification 5L on\nrandomly selected specimens with the following number of tests:\nPipe Size No. of Tests\nLess than 6 5/8 in (168 mm)\nnominal outside diameter\nOne test for each 200 lengths\n6 5/8 in through 12 3/4 in (168\nmm through 324 mm)\nOne test for each 100 lengths\nLarger than 12 3/4 in (324 mm)\nnominal outside diameter.\nOne test for each 50 lengths\n2. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(3) (Item 3), Respondent must gather\nthe appropriate information and establish the assessment interval for its pipelines.\n3. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(3) (Item 5), Respondent must review\nits Integrity Management Plan (IMP) and develop the process it will utilize to\nanalyze and integrate all available information. Panther must also perform the\nrequired data analysis and integration.\n4. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(5) (Item 6), Respondent must\ndevelop a continual process of assessment and evaluation to be included as part of\nits IMP. Panther must also perform the required continual assessment and\nevaluation.\n5. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(f)(6) (Item 7), Respondent must\nperform and fully document preventative and mitigative measure reviews and\ndocument what preventative and mitigative measures were considered, adopted or\nnot adopted and document application of a risk-based decision-making process for\nleak detection enhancements.\n6. Panther shall provide documentation of completing the above items within 60\ndays after receipt of the Final Order.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that Panther maintain documentation of the safety improvement\ncosts associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to R. M. Seeley,\nDirector, Southwest Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in administrative assessment of civil penalties not\nto exceed $200,000 for each violation for each day the violation continues or in referral to the\n\n\n\nCPF No. 4-2016-5032\nPage 10\nAttorney General for appropriate relief in a district court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 1, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195 but did not propose a\ncivil penalty or compliance order for this item. Therefore, this is considered to be warning\nitems. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.64 (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to notify PHMSA within 60\ndays of the acquisition of an existing pipeline facility. On April 21, 2015, OPS received an\nemail from Panther notifying it that Panther had acquired Main Pass Oil Gathering System\nfrom BP Pipelines (North America) in March 2014. The email further indicated that a letter\nwas sent to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement from BP Pipelines (North\nAmerica) stating that effective July 1, 2014, the new operator of the Main Pass Operating\nGathering pipeline system will be Panther Operating Company. Panther filed a notification\nwith PHMSA on April 21, 2015, stating that the acquisition had occurred on July 1, 2013.\nPanther presented information in its Response showing that it had taken certain actions to\naddress the cited item. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection,\nRespondent may be subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent has a right to submit a Petition for Reconsideration of\nthis Final Order. The petition must be sent to: Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline\nSafety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC\n20590, with a copy sent to the Office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address. PHMSA\nwill accept petitions received no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this Final Order by\nthe Respondent, provided they contain a brief statement of the issue(s) and meet all other\nrequirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. Unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay, the terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nMarch 3, 2017\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29882}