{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 520176016","title":"BOC GASES — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-05-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 191.22(c)(2)(i), 195.403(c), 195.420(b), 195.452(j)(3), 195.583(a).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520176016.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520176016.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520176016","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520176016","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving BOC GASES. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 191.22(c)(2)(i),  195.403(c),  195.420(b),  195.452(j)(3),  195.583(a). The case was opened on 2017-05-24 and is reported as closed as of 2018-02-13. Proposed civil penalty: $43,200. Assessed civil penalty: $43,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n520176016_Final Order_02132018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176016/520176016_Final%20Order_02132018.pdf\n\n520176016_Final Order_02132018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176016/520176016_Final%20Order_02132018_text.pdf\n\n520176016_NOPV PCP PCO_05242017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176016/520176016_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05242017.pdf\n\n520176016_NOPV PCP PCO_05242017_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176016/520176016_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_05242017_text.pdf\n\n520176016_Operator Response to Notice_06142017.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520176016/520176016_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_06142017.pdf\n\n520176016_Final Order_02132018_text.pdf\n\nFebruary 13, 2018\nMr. Jason Cooper\nPresident and CEO\nLinde North America, LLC\n200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard\nBridgewater, New Jersey 08807\nRe: CPF No. 5-2017-6016\nDear Mr. Cooper:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $43,200. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of\nthe full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated August 21, 2017. The Final Order further finds\nthat Linde North America, LLC, has completed the actions specified in the Notice to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations. This enforcement action is now closed. Service of the Final\nOrder is deemed effective as 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: Director, Western Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Ray Carr, Head of Regional Operations, Linde North America, LLC\nMr. Andy Gutacker, Head of Onsite Bulk & U.S. Onsite Production, Linde North\nAmerica, 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)\nLinde North America, LLC, ) CPF No. 5-2017-6016\na division of The Linde Group, )\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom November 7 through 8, 2016, 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 of Linde North America,\nLLC (Linde or Respondent), near Green River, Wyoming. Respondent is a division of The Linde\nGroup, an international company headquartered in Munich, Germany, that manufactures and\nsupplies industrial, specialty and medical gases as well as related equipment.1 Linde operates a\npipeline facility and 8.1-mile hazardous liquid pipeline that transports carbon dioxide in the\nvicinity of Green River, Wyoming.2\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to\nRespondent, by letter dated May 24, 2017, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil\nPenalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice), which also included warnings pursuant to\n49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that\nRespondent had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452 and 191.22 and proposed assessing a civil penalty\nof $43,200 for one of the alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to\ntake certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The warning items required no further\naction, but warned the operator to correct the probable violations or face possible future\nenforcement action.\nLinde responded to the Notice by email dated June 14, 2017 (Response). The company did not\ncontest the allegations of violation, but provided an explanation of its actions and requested that\nthe proposed civil penalty be eliminated or reduced. Respondent subsequently paid the civil\n1 See, http://www.lindeus.com/en/about the linde group/linde north america/index html (last accessed October 30,\n2017);\n2 Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (May 23, 2017) (on file with PHMSA), at 1.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-6016\nPage 2\npenalty of $43,200 by wire transfer dated August 31, 2017. Payment of the civil penalty\nauthorizes PHMSA to make findings of violation and to issue this final order without further\nproceedings pursuant to § 190.208(a)(1).\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, Linde did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Parts\n195 and 191, as follows:\nItem 1: 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 a pipeline's integrity?— (1) General. After completing the\nbaseline integrity assessment, an operator must continue to assess the line\npipe at specified intervals and periodically evaluate the integrity of each\npipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area.\n(2) . . . .\n(3) Assessment intervals. An operator must establish five-year intervals,\nnot to exceed 68 months, for continually assessing the line pipe's integrity.\nAn operator must base the assessment intervals on the risk the line pipe\nposes to the high consequence area to determine the priority for assessing\nthe pipeline segments. An operator must establish the assessment intervals\nbased on the factors specified in paragraph (e) of this section, the analysis\nof the results from the last integrity assessment, and the information analysis\nrequired by paragraph (g) of this section.\nThe Notice alleged that Linde violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3), by failing to establish five-year\nintervals, not to exceed 68 months, for continually assessing each pipeline segment that could\naffect a high consequence area. Specifically, the Notice alleged that, during the PHMSA\ninspection, Respondent presented documentation showing that it had assessed the line pipe in\n2006 with a pressure test but could not show that it had reassessed the pipeline’s integrity within\nthe required five-year interval.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Linde violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3) by failing to continually\nassess each pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area within five years, not to\nexceed 68 months.\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.22(c)(2)(i), which states:\n§ 191.22 National Registry of Pipeline and LNG operators.\n(a) . . . .\n(c) Changes. Each operator of a gas pipeline, gas pipeline facility,\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-6016\nPage 3\nunderground natural gas storage facility, LNG plant, or LNG facility must\nnotify PHMSA electronically through the National Registry of Pipeline,\nUnderground Natural Gas Storage Facility, and LNG Operators at\nhttp://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov of certain events.\n(1) . . . .\n(2) An operator must notify PHMSA of any of the following events not\nlater than 60 days after the event occurs:\n(i) A change in the primary entity responsible (i.e., with an assigned\nOPID) for managing or administering a safety program required by this part\ncovering pipeline facilities operated under multiple OPIDs.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.22(c)(2)(i), by failing to notify\nPHMSA of a change in the primary entity responsible for managing or administering a safety\nprogram required by Part 191 covering pipeline facilities operated under multiple Operator\nIdentification Numbers (OPIDs). Specifically, the Notice alleged that Linde acquired BOC Gases\nin 2006, resulting in a change in the primary entity responsible for managing or administering the\nsafety program required by Part 191, but Linde did not notify PHMSA of the change in\nownership within 60 days.\nLinde did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.22(c)(2)(i) by failing to notify\nPHMSA of a change in the primary entity responsible for managing or administering a safety\nprogram required by Part 191 covering pipeline facilities operated under multiple OPIDs.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.3\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; and any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; and the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline\nsafety regulations. In addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation\nwithout any reduction because of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may\nrequire. The Notice proposed a total civil penalty of $43,200 for the violation of § 195.452(j)(3)\n(Item 1).\n3 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, e.g., Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum\nCivil Penalties, 82 Fed. Reg. 19325 (April 27, 2017).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-6016\nPage 4\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $43,200 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(j)(3), for failing to establish five-year intervals, not to exceed 68 months, for\ncontinually assessing each pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area. In its\nResponse, Linde did not contest the allegation of violation but requested the penalty be waived\nor substantially reduced on the grounds that: (1) while the company did not undertake a complete\nreassessment of the pipeline within the required five-year interval, it did timely complete Close\nInterval Surveys (CISes) in 2011 and 2016, and conduct other inspections; (2) this was the first\ncivil penalty Linde had received from PHMSA; (3) there was no “detrimental impact to public\nsafety from the probable violations;” and (4) Linda had taken prompt action to ensure that there\nwould be no future violations.\nOn August 3, 2017, in accordance with § 190.209(b)(7), the Regional Director submitted a\nwritten evaluation of the response material submitted by Respondent and recommended that the\npenalty be assessed in the amount proposed. Subsequently, on August 31, 2017, Respondent\npaid the proposed civil penalty in full. Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment waives\nLinde’s opportunity to contest the penalty amount. Notwithstanding, I have considered Linde’s\narguments to reduce the penalty but find the proposed penalty amount to be appropriate.\nWith regard to the nature and circumstances of the violation, I find that PHMSA discovered the\nviolation and that Respondent failed to perform a required pipeline-safety activity. With regard\nto the gravity of the violation, OPS alleged that pipeline safety was compromised in a high\nconsequence area. While Respondent argued the gravity of the violation was less severe because\nit performed CISes in 2011 and 2016, such surveys are intended only to measure cathodic\nprotection therefore are not a substitute for a comprehensive pipeline integrity assessment, as is\nrequired under § 195.452. Although Respondent also contended there were no impacts to public\nsafety, I find the company’s failure to comply with the integrity management regulations\ncompromised safety, at a minimum, by delaying the performance of a pipeline integrity\nassessment beyond the maximum time permitted.\nWith respect to the degree of Respondent’s culpability and good faith in attempting to comply\nwith the pipeline safety regulations, Linde contended the penalty should be lowered because it\ntook prompt action to ensure that no future violations would occur. While such actions are\ncommendable, I do not find they warrant a penalty reduction, since they were taken subsequent\nto PHMSA identifying the violation. At that point, Respondent was already obligated to\nremediate the violation. Finally, with regard to Linde’s compliance history and argument that it\nhad never previously received a penalty from PHMSA, I have reviewed the company’s\nenforcement history and can confirm this is correct. In fact, page two of the Pipeline Safety\nViolation Report in this case reflects no prior violations. This information was already\nconsidered in establishing the proposed penalty amount; therefore, I find no reason to reduce the\npenalty further.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $43,200 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for the Item cited\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-6016\nPage 5\nabove, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $43,200, which amount has already been paid.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1 and 2 in the Notice, for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.452(j)(3) and 191.22(c)(2)(i), respectively. Under 49 U.S.C.\n§ 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or\noperates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the applicable safety standards established\nunder chapter 601. The Director indicates that Respondent has taken the following actions\nspecified in the proposed compliance order:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.452(j)(3) (Item 1), on July 25, 2017,\nRespondent successfully completed an eight-hour test of the pipeline, witnessed by\nPHMSA.\n2. With respect to the violation of § 191.22(c)(2)(i) (Item 2), Respondent filed the\nnecessary paperwork to update its operator name and OPID. The operator is now\n“Linde North America, LLC” and its OPID is 31391.\nAccordingly, I find that compliance has been achieved with respect to these violations.\nTherefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice are not included in this Order.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 3, 4 and 5, the Notice alleged probable violations of Part 195, but did not\npropose a civil penalty or compliance order for these items. Therefore, these are considered to\nbe warning items. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to require and\nverify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the\nemergency response procedures established under § 195.402 for which they are\nresponsible to ensure compliance;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) (Item 4) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each\nmainline valve to determine that it is functioning properly, at intervals not\nexceeding 7½ months, but at least twice each calendar year; and\n49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) (Item 5) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to inspect each\nonshore pipeline or portion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere, for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion at least once every three calendar years, but with intervals\nnot exceeding 39 months.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 5-2017-6016\nPage 6\nRespondent stated in its Response that it had taken certain actions to address the cited\nitems. If OPS finds a violation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may\nbe subject to future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a petition for reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,\nEast Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20590, no later than 20 days after receipt of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and\nmeet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays\nthe payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective\naction, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with\n49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nFebruary 13, 2018\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n520176016_NOPV PCP PCO_05242017_text.pdf\n\nNOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION\nPROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY\nand\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nCERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\nMay 24, 2017\nMr. Ray Carr\nHead of Regional Operations\nLinde North America Inc.\nThe Linde Group\n200 Somerset Cooperate Blvd\nBridgewater, NJ 08807\nCPF 5-2017-6016\nDear Mr. Carr:\nOn November 7 and 8, 2016, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49\nUnited States Code, inspected The Linde Group’s CO2 pipeline facility in the vicinity of\nGreen River, Wyoming.\nAs a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the\nPipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The items inspected and\nthe probable violations are:\n\n\n\n1. §195.452 Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.\n(j) What is a continual process of evaluation and assessment to maintain a\npipeline's integrity?\n(1) General. After completing the baseline integrity assessment, an operator\nmust continue to assess the line pipe at specified intervals and periodically\nevaluate the integrity of each pipeline segment that could affect a high\nconsequence area.\n(3) Assessment intervals. An operator must establish five-year intervals, not to\nexceed 68 months, for continually assessing the line pipe's integrity. An operator\nmust base the assessment intervals on the risk the line pipe poses to the high\nconsequence area to determine the priority for assessing the pipeline segments.\nAn operator must establish the assessment intervals based on the factors\nspecified in paragraph (e) of this section, the analysis of the results from the last\nintegrity assessment, and the information analysis required by paragraph (g) of\nthis section.\nThe Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3) by failing to continually assess the line\npipe’s integrity at five-year intervals, not to exceed 68 months, to evaluate the integrity of\neach pipeline segment that could affect a high consequence area. The Linde Group used a\npressure test to assess the integrity of the line pipe in accordance with 195.452 (j)(5)(ii).\nAccording to the Linde Group, the last pressure test was conducted in 2006. During the\ninspection, the Linde Group failed to present any evidence, including pressure test records,\nshowing that they reassessed the pipeline’s integrity within a five-year interval, not to exceed\n68 months. In fact, a Linde Group compliance officer disclosed to PHMSA during the\ninspection that no pressure tests to assess the line pipe’s integrity had been performed within\nthe 5-year interval. Therefore, the Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(j)(3).\n2. §191.22 National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators\n(c) Changes. Each operator of a gas pipeline, gas pipeline facility, LNG plant or\nLNG facility must notify PHMSA electronically through the National Registry of\nPipeline and LNG Operators at http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov of certain events.\n(2) An operator must notify PHMSA of any of the following events not later than\n60 days after the event occurs:\n(i) A change in the primary entity responsible (i.e., with an assigned OPID)\nfor managing or administering a safety program required by this part\ncovering pipeline facilities operated under multiple OPIDs.\n(ii) A change in the name of the operator;\nThe Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.22(c)(2)(i) by failing to notify PHMSA of a\nchange in the primary entity responsible for managing or administering a safety program\nrequired by this part covering pipeline facilities operated under multiple OPIDs not later than\n60 days after the event occurred. In 2006, The Linde Group acquired BOC Gases, resulting in\na change in the primary entity responsible for managing or administering a safety program\nrequired by this Part. However, The Linde Group did not notify PHMSA of this change in\n\n\n\noperatorship of the pipeline. Therefore, by failing to notify PHMSA of this change in the\nprimary entity responsible for managing or administering a safety program required by Part\n191 covering pipeline facilities operated under multiple OPIDs not later than 60 days after the\nchange in ownership, The Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. § 191.22(c)(2)(i).\n3. §195.403 Emergency Response Training.\n(c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors maintain a\nthorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency response procedures\nestablished under 195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure compliance.\nThe Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c) by failing to require and verify that its\nsupervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency response\nprocedures established under 195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure compliance.\nDuring the inspection, The Linde Group failed to provide any evidence, including but not\nlimited to training records, to show that its site manager Kevin Harris, responsible for\nimplementing the facility response plan. maintained a thorough knowledge of these\nemergency response procedures for which he was responsible to ensure compliance for 2016.\n4. §195.420 Valve maintenance.\n(b) Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 7 1/2 months, but at least\ntwice each calendar year, inspect each mainline valve to determine that it is\nfunctioning properly.\nThe Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b) by failing to inspect each mainline valve to\ndetermine that it is functioning properly at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at least\ntwice each calendar year. During the inspection, The Linde Group provided PHMSA only one\nvalve maintenance inspection record for 2015, and offered no other evidence that it conducted\nan additional mainline valve inspection during that calendar year. Therefore, it failed to\nperform valve maintenance at intervals not to exceed 7 ½ months, but at least twice in 2015.\nIt also failed to present any evidence that it inspected each mainline valve to determine that it\nwas functioning properly from 2011-2014. Therefore, by failing to conduct valve\nmaintenance inspections at intervals not exceeding 7 ½ months, but at least twice each\ncalendar year for 2011-2015, The Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.420(b).\n5. §195.583 What must I do to monitor atmospheric corrosion control?\n(a) You must inspect each pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the\natmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion, as follows:\nIf the pipeline is located: Then the frequency of inspection is: Onshore At least\nonce every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months\nThe Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.583(a) by failing to inspect each onshore pipeline\nor portion of pipeline exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at\nleast once every 3 calendar years, but with intervals not exceeding 39 months. During the\n\n\n\ninspection, The Linde Group failed to provide PHMSA with any evidence that it inspected its\nonshore pipeline or portion of pipeline that is exposed to the atmosphere for evidence of\natmospheric corrosion, including but not limited to any inspection records. Therefore, by\nfailing to demonstrate that it inspected its onshore pipeline, or portion of pipeline exposed to\nthe atmosphere, for evidence of atmospheric corrosion at least once every 3 calendar years,\nbut with intervals not exceeding 39 months, The Linde Group violated 49 C.F.R. §\n195.583(a).\nWarning Items\nWith respect to Items 3, 4 and 5, we have reviewed the circumstances and supporting\ndocuments involved in this case and have decided not to conduct additional enforcement\naction or penalty assessment proceedings at this time. We advise you to promptly correct\nthese items. Failure to do so may result in additional enforcement action.\nProposed Civil Penalty\nUnder 49 United States Code, §60122, you are subject to a civil penalty not to exceed\n$205,638 per violation per day the violation persists up to a maximum of $2,056,380 for a\nrelated series of violations. For violations occurring between January 4, 2012 to August 1,\n2016, the maximum penalty may not exceed $200.000 per violation per day, with a maximum\npenalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. For violations occurring\nprior to January 4, 2012, the maximum penalty may not exceed $100,000 per violation per\nday, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $1,000,000 for related series of violations.\nItem number PENALTY\nItem 1 $43,200\nProposed Compliance Order\nWith respect to Item 1 and 2 pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to The\nLinde Group. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a\npart of this Notice.\nResponse to this Notice\nEnclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline\nOperators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response\noptions. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly\navailable. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for\nconfidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you\nmust provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for\nconfidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted\ninformation qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). If you do not respond\n\n\n\nwithin 30 days of receipt of this Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the\nallegations in this Notice and authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to\nfind facts as alleged in this Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order.\nIn your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2016-6016 and for each\ndocument you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.\nSincerely,\nChris Hoidal\nDirector, Western Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEnclosures: Proposed Compliance Order\nResponse Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings\ncc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry\nPHP-500 G. Ogirima (#154571)\n\n\n\nPROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER\nPursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to The Linde Group a Compliance Order\nincorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of The Linde\nGroup with the pipeline safety regulations:\n1. 2. 3. In Regards to item Number 1 pertaining to continual process of evaluation and\nassessment to maintain a pipeline's integrity, The Linde Group must within 120\ndays assess the integrity of its pipeline in accordance with 195.452 (c) and\nprovide a written record of compliance to PHMSA’s Western Region Office\nwithin 30 days of the integrity assessment.\nIn regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to notification of change\nof the primary entity responsible for administering a safety program, The\nLinde Group must notify PHMSA of a change in the primary entity responsible\nfor administering a safety program within 30 days of receipt of this Notice.\nIt is requested (not mandated) that The Linde Group maintain documentation\nof the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance\nOrder and submit the total to Chris Hoidal, Director, Western Region, Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is requested that these costs\nbe reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated with preparation/revision\nof plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.","truncated":false,"body_characters":28805}