# IDAHO PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 520186015
- **title:** IDAHO PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2018-07-19
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 194.107(c)(1)(ix), 194.107(c)(1)(viii), 194.7(b), 195.402(c)(3), 195.404(a)(3), 195.440(a).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186015.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186015.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-520186015
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/520186015
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving IDAHO PIPELINE CORP. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 194.107(c)(1)(ix),  194.107(c)(1)(viii),  194.7(b),  195.402(c)(3),  195.404(a)(3),  195.440(a). The case was opened on 2018-07-19 and is reported as closed as of 2025-06-30. Proposed civil penalty: $49,000. Assessed civil penalty: $49,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

520186015_Closure Letter_06302025_(17-155733S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Closure%20Letter_06302025_(17-155733S).pdf

520186015_Closure Letter_06302025_(17-155733S)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Closure%20Letter_06302025_(17-155733S)_text.pdf

520186015_Complaint United States versus Idaho Pipeline_05292024_(17-1557335).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Complaint%20United%20States%20versus%20Idaho%20Pipeline_05292024_(17-1557335).pdf

520186015_Final Order_08092019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Final%20Order_08092019.pdf

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Final%20Order_08092019_text.pdf

520186015_Motion for Default Judgement_01082025_(17-155733S).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Motion%20for%20Default%20Judgement_01082025_(17-155733S).pdf

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07192018.pdf

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_NOPV%20PCP%20PCO_07192018_text.pdf

520186015_Operator Response to Notice_08172018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/520186015/520186015_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_08172018.pdf

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf

August 9, 2019
Mr. Robert Rose
President
Idaho Pipeline Corporation
P.O. Box 15653
Boise, Idaho 83715
Re: CPF No. 5-2018-6015
Dear Mr. Rose:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, assesses a civil penalty of $49,000, and specifies actions that need to be taken by Idaho
Pipeline Corporation to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms
are set forth in the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the
compliance order completed, as determined by the Director, Western Region, this enforcement
action will be closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of
mailing, as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dustin Hubbard, Director, Western Office, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
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 )
Idaho Pipeline Corporation, ) CPF No. 5-2018-6015
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
During September 5 through 8, 2017, and September 18 through 21, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
§ 60117, representatives 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 Idaho Pipeline Corporation’s Boise Aviation Fuel Pipeline (IDPC or
Respondent) in Boise, Idaho.1 The IDPC’s Boise Aviation Fuel Pipeline (BAFP) is an 8- and 4-
inch pipeline system totaling 2.69 miles.2 The BAFP was built in 1987 and was designed to
receive, store, and transfer jet fuel to the Idaho Air National Guard.3
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Western Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated July 19, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil
Penalty, and Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the
Notice proposed finding that IDPC had committed two violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 194 and three
violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $49,000 for one of the
alleged violations. The Notice also proposed ordering Respondent to take certain measures to
correct the alleged violations.
IDPC responded to the Notice by letter dated August 17, 2018 (Response). The company
contested one allegation, offered additional information in response to the Notice, and requested
that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated or reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing
and therefore has waived its right to one.
1 Idaho Pipeline Corporation is a sister company of several other pipeline companies owned or controlled by Mr.
Robert L. Rose. E.g., In the Matter of St. Louise Pipeline Operating, LLC, CPF 3-2017-5006, 2018 WL 3703699, at
4 (May 1, 2018); In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Company CPF 2-2013-6009, 2014 WL 6877083, at 5
(September 29, 2014); In the Matter of the Pipelines of Puerto Rico, Inc., CPF 2-2012-6020, at Footnotes 1 and 2,
(February 28, 2013). PHMSA final orders are accessible on the agency's website, available at http://
primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/Actions.
2 PHMSA Violation Report, on file with PHMSA.
3 Id., at Exhibit A, page 72 of 91.



CPF 5-2018-6015
Page 2
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Parts 194 and 195, as follows:
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.7(b), which states:
§ 194.7 Operating restrictions and interim operating authorization.
(a) ….
(b) An operator must operate its onshore pipeline facilities in
accordance with the applicable response plan.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.7(b) by failing to follow the
National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) guidelines as required by its own
oil spill response plan. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IDPC failed to satisfy the general
response plan requirement of inclusion of a drill program that followed PREP guidelines. The
Notice alleged, for example, that IDPC failed to perform an Incident Management Team exercise
and also failed to perform an Equipment Deployment drill under sections 5.2 and 5.3 of PREP,
respectively, within the required triennial cycle.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.7(b) by failing to follow the
PREP guidelines as required by its oil spill response plan.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(viii), which
states:
§ 194.107 General response plan requirements.
(a) ….
(c) Each response plan must include:
(1) A core plan consisting of-
(i) ….
(viii) Equipment testing…
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(viii) by failing to test its
emergency response equipment. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IDPC had response
equipment at its terminal but was unable to provide any documentation demonstrating that it had
performed testing on this emergency response equipment.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(viii) by failing to test
its emergency response equipment.
Item 3: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3), which states:
§ 195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.
(a) ….



CPF 5-2018-6015
Page 3
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by
paragraph (a) of this section must include procedures for the following to
provide safety during maintenance and normal operations:
(1) ….
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in
accordance with each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of
this part.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to prepare and
follow a written procedure for operating, maintaining and repairing the pipeline in accordance
with Part 195 Subpart F-Operation and Maintenance (O&M). Specifically, the Notice alleged
that IDPC’s O&M manual failed to have a written procedure for establishing the maximum
operating pressure (MOP) for its 8- and 4-inch pipelines in accordance with § 195.406.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.402(c)(3) by failing to have and
follow a written procedure for establishing the MOP for its 8- and 4-inch pipelines in accordance
with § 195.406.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3), which states:
§ 195.404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline
systems that include at least the following information:
(1) ….
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain
current records of its pipeline system that include the MOP. Specifically, the Notice alleged that
IDPC could not produce any records or calculations that were used to establish the MOP of its 8-
and 4-inch pipelines.
In its Response, IDPC argued that on November 11, 2009, its contractor performed an eight-hour
pressure test on both the 8- and 4-inch pipelines and established an MOP of 292 psig in
accordance with § 195.304. At that time, IDPC stated that it opted to establish an MOP of 275
psig. IDPC stated further that its contractor performed another pressure test of its 8- and 4-inch
pipelines on April 30, 2014, which established an MOP of 289 psig. IDPC argued that instead of
adopting the higher MOP of 289 psig in 2014, it chose to retain the established MOP of 275 psig.
IDPC also argued that all of the test records were available at the time of the inspection.
Section 195.404(a)(3) requires each operator to maintain records of its pipeline system that
include the MOP of each pipeline. The MOP of each pipeline, pursuant to § 195.406, may not
exceed any of the following pressures: (1) internal design pressure of the pipe; (2) design
pressure of any component of the pipeline; and (3) eighty percent of the test pressure, among
other specifications.
While IDPC contends that its eight-hour pressure tests in 2009 and 2014, and the pressure test



CPF 5-2018-6015
Page 4
records, constitute records sufficient to demonstrate the MOP in accordance with
§ 195.404(a)(3), pressure test records are only a portion of the records Respondent is required to
maintain to establish the MOP. Respondent failed to provide other records or calculations
necessary to establish or substantiate the MOP of its 8- and 4-inch pipelines. For example,
Respondent did not provide records regarding the design pressure of the pipe or any components
of the pipeline. Records that are needed to determine or substantiate the MOP may include, but
are not limited to, pipe manufacturer specification records, pipe mill records, pipe yield strength,
seam type, wall thickness, and pipe diameter thickness.
Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49
C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3) by failing to maintain current records of its pipeline system, particularly,
records or calculations that validate the MOP of its 8- and 4-inch pipelines.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a), which states:
§ 195.440 Public awareness.
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written
continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in
the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP)
1162 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3).
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to develop and
implement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in
API RP 1162. Specifically, the Notice alleged that IDPC had established a continuing public
awareness program but had failed to follow several sections of API RP 1162.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.440(a) by failing to properly
develop and implement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance
provided in API RP 1162.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.4 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
4 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,
83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).



CPF 5-2018-6015
Page 5
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $49,000 for one of the violations cited above.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $49,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.404(a)(3), for failing to maintain current records of its pipeline system, specifically records
or calculations that validate the MOP of its 8- and 4-inch pipelines. In its Response, IDPC
contested the violation but argued, in the alternative, that the proposed penalty should be reduced
due to financial hardship. According to the company, its supplier terminated its Connection and
Operations agreement with IDPC, resulting in the loss of its resupply capability and any
associated revenues since May 13, 2017.5 IDPC provided no records to support its assertion, but
asked to “reserve the right to provide further information if needed.”
In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I
must consider any effect that the penalty may have on Respondent’s ability to continue doing
business. However, respondents “must provide PHMSA with the means by which the agency
can accurately determine the company’s true financial condition.”6 PHMSA has previously
instructed operators, including IDPC’s President, that asserting a claim of financial hardship
requires that the company submit “accurate and reliable information on the financial condition”
of the company.7 Thus, Respondent had notice that failure to provide such documentation in the
Response would be grounds for denial of such a claim.8 Since Respondent has again asserted a
financial hardship argument without providing any supporting documentation, I find no basis for
reducing or eliminating the proposed penalty on grounds of financial hardship. Respondent’s
request to “reserve the right” to provide further information prior to issuance of this order is
denied pursuant to § 190.208, which required Respondent to submit all responsive material no
later than 30 days after its receipt of the Notice.
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess
Respondent a civil penalty of $49,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.404(a)(3).
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49
C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal
Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed
instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be
directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.
The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.
5 Response, at 2.
6 In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Corp., Decision on Reconsideration, CPF No. 2-2005-6012, 2008 WL
902910, at 2 (Mar. 31, 2008). See also, In the Matter of Tampa Pipeline Corporation, CPF 2-2008-6002, 2010 WL
2228556, at 19 (April 26, 2010). The Notices and Final Orders in both of these matters were addressed to Robert
Rose, the president of both IDPC and the Tampa Pipeline Corporation.
7 Id.
8 Id.



CPF 5-2018-6015
Page 6
Failure to pay the $49,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate
in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to
those same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if
payment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty
may result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district
court of the United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 1-5 in the Notice for violations of
49 C.F.R. §§ 194.7(b), 194.107(c)(1)(viii), 195.402(c)(3), 195.404(a)(3) and 195.440(a),
respectively. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the transportation of
hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to comply with the
applicable safety standards established under chapter 601. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C.
§ 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is ordered to take the following actions to
ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 194.7(b), (Item 1), Respondent must perform an
Incident Management Team (tabletop exercise) and field equipment deployment
exercise, and provide the records to the Director to verify that the drills have been
performed within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.
2. With respect to the violation of § 194.107(c)(1)(viii), (Item 2), Respondent must
properly test emergency response equipment stored at the Boise Terminal and provide
the testing results to the Director to verify that testing occurred within 60 days of the
Final Order.
3. With respect to the violation of § 195.402(c)(3), (Item 3), Respondent must
develop a written procedure to establish the MOP for its pipeline system, and provide
the procedure to the Director for review and approval within 60 days of receipt of the
Final Order.
4. With respect to the violation of § 195.404(a)(3), (Item 4), Respondent must
provide records to the Director to verify how it previously established the MOP of its
pipeline system. If the process by which the MOP was established is unknown, it
must re-establish the MOP of the pipelines (both the 8- and 4-inch lines) in
accordance with Part 195, and provide the records to the Director within 60 days of
receipts of the Final Order.
5. With respect to the violation of § 195.440(a), (Item 5), Respondent must develop
and implement a written Public Awareness Program that follows API RP 1162,
including addressing all the identified deficiencies set forth in Item 5 of the Notice,
and provide the written program to the Director within 60 days of receipt of the Final
Order.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a



CPF 5-2018-6015
Page 7
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.
It is requested (not mandated) that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety
improvement costs associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the
Director. It is requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated
with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated
with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final
Order to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of
Chief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of this
Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a statement of the issue(s) and
meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically stays
the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including corrective
action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
August 9, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

520186015_Closure Letter_06302025_(17-155733S)_text.pdf

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: tampapc@outlook.com
June 30, 2025
Mr. Robert Rose
President
Idaho Pipeline Corporation
PO Box 15770
Sarasota, FL 34277
CPF 5-2018-6015
Closure Letter
Dear Mr. Rose:
On August 9, 2019, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
issued to Idaho Pipeline Corporation a Final Order in the above-referenced case. This Order
included a Compliance Order and Civil Penalty assessment. Based on our review and
confirmation of payment of the civil penalty, it has been determined that you have complied with
the terms of this Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed, and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dustin Hubbard
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 D. Fehling (#17-155733S)

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf

NOTICE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION
PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY
and
PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
July 19, 2018
Mr. Robert Rose
President
Idaho Pipeline Corporation
PO Box 35236
Sarasota, FL 34242
CPF 5-2018-6015
Dear Mr. Rose:
On September 5 through 8, and September 18 through 21, 2017, representatives of the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS), pursuant to Chapter 601 of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.), inspected your Boise
Aviation Fuel Pipeline (BAFP) in Boise, Idaho.
As a result of the inspection, it is alleged that you have committed probable violations of the
Pipeline Safety Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The items
inspected and the probable violations are:



1. §194.7 Operation restrictions and interim operating authorization.
(a) . . .
(b) An operator must operate its onshore pipeline facilities in accordance with
the applicable response plan.
AND
§194.107 General response plan requirements.
(a) . . .
(c) Each response plan must include:
(1) A core plan consisting of –
(ix) Drill program – an operator will satisfy the requirement for a drill program
by following the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP)
guidelines. An operator choosing not to follow PREP guidelines must have a drill
program that is equivalent to PREP. The operator must describe the drill
program in the response plan and OPS will determine if the program is
equivalent to PREP.
Idaho Pipeline Corporation’s (IDPC) oil spill response plan states, “IDPC will follow the
PREP guidelines.”1 IDPC failed to operate its onshore pipeline facility in accordance with its
applicable response plan by failing to follow the PREP guidelines. Specifically, IDPC failed
to satisfy the general response plan requirement of inclusion of a drill program that followed
the National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) guidelines, other than
quarterly notification drills, in accordance with §194.107(c)(1)(ix).2 An operator must follow
Section 5 of the PREP for conducting drills and complying with the established frequency for
each type of drill. This includes conducting Incident Management Team (IMT) exercises and
Equipment Deployment drills consistent with the triennial cycle (annually). 3 Further, Section
7 of IDPC’s Facility Response Plan (FRP) also required that these drills be conducted on the
triennial cycle and properly documented and filed for future reference (at least 3 years
insuring availability to PHMSA).4
At the time of the inspection, it was noted that IDPC failed to perform an IMT exercise or
equipment deployment exercise under Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of PREP, and Section 7 of its FRP
1 Idaho Pipeline Corporation Facility Response Plan, Sequence number 1581, Section 6.
2 IDPC also failed to have a drill program that is equivalent to PREP, as determined by OPS.
3 See PREP Section 5.2 (noting that IMT exercises should be conducted “as indicated in the response plan and, at
a minimum, consistent with the triennial cycle (annually)”); see also PREP Section 5.3 (noting that equipment
deployment drills should be conducted “as indicated in the response plan and, at a minimum, consistent with the
triennial cycle (annually)”).
4 See IDPC Facility Response Plan, Section 7 “Drill Procedures” at 7-1 (requiring that IMT exercises and
equipment deployment drills be conducted yearly).
2



for the last triennial cycle.5 During the PHMSA inspection, IDPC failed to provide any
documentation to indicate that it completed the drills in the required triennial cycle.
2. §194.107 General response plan requirements.
(a) . . .
(c) Each response plan must include:
(1) A core plan consisting of –
(viii) Equipment testing.
IDPC failed to perform equipment testing in accordance with §194.107(c)(1)(viii). At the time
of the inspection, IDPC had response equipment at its terminal; however, IDPC was not able
to provide any documentation to evidence that it, or the Oil Spill Response Organization
(OSRO)6 had performed testing of this emergency response equipment.
3. §195.402 Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and emergencies.
(a) . . .
(c) Maintenance and normal operations. The manual required by paragraph (a) of
this section must include procedures for the following to provide safety during
maintenance and normal operations:
(1) . . .
(3) Operating, maintaining, and repairing the pipeline system in accordance with
each of the requirements of this subpart and subpart H of this part.
IDPC failed to prepare and follow a written procedure for operating, maintaining and
repairing the pipeline in accordance with Subpart F by failing to have a procedure for
establishing maximum operating pressure (MOP) in accordance with §195.406. At the time of
the inspection, IDPC’s Operations and Maintenance Manual failed to provide a written
procedure for establishing maximum operating pressures for its eight (8) and four (4) inch
pipelines in accordance with §195.406.
4. §195.404 Maps and records.
(a) Each operator shall maintain current maps and records of its pipeline systems
that include at least the following information:
(1) . . .
(3) The maximum operating pressure of each pipeline.
IDPC failed to maintain current records of its pipeline system to include the maximum
operating pressure (MOP) in accordance with §195.404(a)(3). At the time of the inspection,
IDPC could not produce any records or calculations which were used to establish the
maximum operating pressures of both the eight (8) and four (4) inch pipelines. During the
5 In June 2017, PHMSA issued a Warning Letter, CPF 5-2017-6019W, to IDPC for failure to perform drills
pursuant to Section 7 of its Drill Procedures.
6 IDPC’s FRP at 4-6.
3



inspection, interviews with IDPC’s Terminal Manager revealed that the design engineer for
the 8- and 4-inch pipelines passed away many years earlier and IDPC failed to obtain any
records and calculations for establishing MOP on these lines.
5. §195.440 Public awareness.
(a) Each pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing
public education program that follows the guidance provided in the American
Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by
reference, see §195.3).
IDPC failed to properly develop and implement a written continuing public education
program that follows the guidance provided in API RP 1162 in accordance with §195.440(a).
At the time of the inspection, it was noted that although a Public Awareness Program had
been established, the program failed to include the following API RP 1162 guidance:
 API RP Section 2.5 - No statement of management's support could be found in the
Public Awareness Program.
 API RP Section 1.2 - The program fails to clearly identify the specific pipeline
systems and facilities to be included in the program, along with the unique attributes
and characteristics of each. The program does mention that the pipeline transports
aviation jet fuel but does not mention the breakout tanks or other attributes located at
the Gowen Road Facility in accordance with §195.440(b).
 API RP Section 3 - The operator’s program has failed to identify all the stakeholder
audiences included in the “Affected Public”. The operator has not identified three (3)
businesses near their facilities. These businesses have been in operation for multiple
years. The operator’s program states, “Section 3.8.1 - The public affected in areas
where we operate - page 9, "When identifying the affected public, IDPC personnel will
take a common sense approach. Since the majority of the pipeline is in an unpopulated
area, any business or residence within a 300 foot radius and in sight of the line will be
identified as affected public."
 API RP Section 3.10 - The stakeholder audiences, message type, frequency, and
delivery methods. The section states that Chapter 5 lists the specified media and
frequency for each target audience. However, there is no Chapter 5 found in the
program, and no defined messages, delivery methods, or delivery frequencies are
found in the program. Additionally, no "other relevant factors" or discussions
regarding consideration of relevant factors were found in the program in accordance
with §195.440(c).
4



 API RP Section 7 - Documentation of annual program review, performed by the
Terminal Manager, is vague and the information contained is incomplete.
 API RP Section 8.2 - While contact with excavators is tracked, effectiveness review
with all other stakeholder audiences is not.
 API RP Section 2.3 - During the records inspection of IDPC’s public awareness
program, IDPC does not have a process for identifying whether other languages are
required. In discussion with the Terminal Manager, it was stated that in his experience
all stakeholder audiences spoke English. Without a process in place, there is no way to
determine if other languages must be addressed by the public awareness program in
accordance with §195.440(g).
 API RP Section 8.4 - The program does not specify how self-assessments and
effectiveness evaluations will be conducted. The program does not state the frequency
for evaluations other than to say it will periodically measure the effectiveness in
accordance with §195.440(i).
Proposed Civil Penalty
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 CFR § 190.223, you are subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $209,002 per violation per day the violation persists, up to a maximum of $2,090,022
for a related series of violations. For violations occurring prior to November 2, 2015, the
maximum penalty may not exceed $200,000 per violation per day, with a maximum penalty
not to exceed $2,000,000 for a related series of violations. The Compliance Officer has
reviewed the circumstances and supporting documentation involved in the above probable
violations and has recommended that you be preliminarily assessed a civil penalty of $49,000
as follows:
Item number PENALTY
4 $49,000
Proposed Compliance Order
With respect to Items 1 through 5, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration proposes to issue a Compliance Order to Idaho Pipeline
Corporation. Please refer to the Proposed Compliance Order, which is enclosed and made a
part of this Notice.
Response to this Notice
Enclosed as part of this Notice is a document entitled Response Options for Pipeline
Operators in Compliance Proceedings. Please refer to this document and note the response
options. All material you submit in response to this enforcement action may be made publicly
available. If you believe that any portion of your responsive material qualifies for
5



confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), along with the complete original document you
must provide a second copy of the document with the portions you believe qualify for
confidential treatment redacted and an explanation of why you believe the redacted
information qualifies for confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Following the receipt of this Notice, you have 30 days to submit written comments, or request
a hearing under 49 CFR § 190.211. If you do not respond within 30 days of receipt of this
Notice, this constitutes a waiver of your right to contest the allegations in this Notice and
authorizes the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to find facts as alleged in this
Notice without further notice to you and to issue a Final Order. If you are responding to this
Notice, we propose that you submit your correspondence to my office within 30 days from
receipt of this Notice. This period may be extended by written request for good cause.
In your correspondence on this matter, please refer to CPF 5-2018-6015 and, for each
document you submit, please provide a copy in electronic format whenever possible.
Sincerely,
Kim West
Director, Western Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Enclosures: Proposed Compliance Order
Response Options for Pipeline Operators in Compliance Proceedings
cc: PHP-60 Compliance Registry
PHP-500 D. Fehling/C. Carroll (#155754)
6



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE ORDER
Pursuant to 49 United States Code § 60118, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) proposes to issue to Idaho Pipeline Corporation a Compliance
Order incorporating the following remedial requirements to ensure the compliance of Idaho
Pipeline Corporation with the pipeline safety regulations:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In regard to Item Number 1 of the Notice pertaining to Idaho Pipeline
Corporation’s (IDPC) failure to conduct Incident Management Team (IMT)
exercises and equipment deployment exercises within the required intervals
under PREP in accordance with §194.107(c)(1)(ix), IDPC must perform a IMT
(tabletop exercise) and field equipment deployment exercise, and provide the
records to PHMSA’s Western Region Director (Director) to verify that the
drills have been performed within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 2 of the Notice pertaining to IDPC’s failure to test
emergency response equipment stored at the Boise Terminal, IDPC must
properly test the equipment and provide the testing results to the Director to
verify the testing occurred within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 3 of the Notice pertaining to IDPC’s failure to
prepare and follow a written procedure for establishing maximum operating
pressure (MOP) in accordance with §195.406, IDPC must develop a written
procedure to establish MOP, and provide the procedure to the Director for
review and approval within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 4 of the Notice pertaining to IDPC’s failure to
maintain records and calculations in accordance with §195.404(a)(3), IDPC
must provide records to the Director to verify how it had previously
established the MOP of its pipeline system. If the process by which the MOP
was established is unknown, it must re-establish the MOP of the pipelines
(both the 8” and 4” lines) in accordance with Part 195, and provide the records
to the Director within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order.
In regard to Item Number 5 of the Notice pertaining to IDPC’s failure to
properly develop and implement a written continuing public education
program that follows the guidance provided in API RP 1162, IDPC must
develop and implement a written Public Awareness Program that follows API
RP 1162, including addressing all the identified deficiencies set forth in Item 5
of the Notice, and provide the written program to the Director within 60 days
of receipt of the Final Order.
It is requested (not mandated) that Idaho Pipeline Corporation maintain
documentation of the safety improvement costs associated with fulfilling this
Compliance Order and submit the total to the Kim West, Director, Western
Region, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: 1) total cost associated
with preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses, and 2)
total cost associated with replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline
7



infrastructure.
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 38245