IDAHO PIPELINE CORP — Notice of Probable Violation

case documentOfficial PDF520186015_Complaint United States versus Idaho Pipeline_05292024_(17-1557335).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF520186015_Motion for Default Judgement_01082025_(17-155733S).pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF520186015_Operator Response to Notice_08172018.pdf#

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFAugust 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#

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf, page 2U.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.#

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf, page 3CPF 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) ….#

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf, page 4CPF 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#

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf, page 5CPF 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).#

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf, page 6CPF 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.#

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf, page 7CPF 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#

520186015_Final Order_08092019_text.pdf, page 8CPF 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, page 1Official PDFVIA 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, page 1Official PDFNOTICE 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:#

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf, page 21. §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#

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf, page 3for 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#

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf, page 4inspection, 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#

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf, page 5 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#

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf, page 6confidential 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#

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf, page 7PROPOSED 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#

520186015_NOPV PCP PCO_07192018_text.pdf, page 8infrastructure.#