PAULSBORO NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

party submissionOfficial PDF12021002NOPV_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_09222021_(20-171837).pdf#

party submissionOfficial PDF12021002NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_03052021_(20-171837).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837).pdf#

case documentOfficial PDF12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837)_text.pdf#

12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFDecember 8, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: thomas.nimbley@pbfenergy.com Mr. Thomas Nimbley Chairman and Chief Executive Officer PBF Logistics LP 1 Sylvan Way, 2nd Floor Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Re: CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Dear Mr. Nimbley: Enclosed please find the Decision on Petition for Reconsideration (Decision) issued in the above-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision denies your petition. The penalty payment terms remain unchanged from those set forth in the Final Order issued September 2, 2021. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding. Service of this Decision by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission 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. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Thomas J. McLane, Director, Regulatory Compliance, PBF Logistics LP, thomas.mclane@pbfenergy.com Mr. Jim Fedena, Senior Vice President - Logistics, PBF Energy Inc., jim.fedena@pbfenergy.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_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 ) Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV a subsidiary of PBF Logistics LP, ) ) ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________) DECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION From February 27, 2020, through October 2, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC (PNGPC or Petitioner), a subsidiary of PBF Logistics LP, in Gloucester, New Jersey and Delaware, Pennsylvania.1 PNGPC’s natural gas pipeline takes delivery from Enbridge Natural Gas Company (Enbridge) in Pennsylvania near the Philadelphia International Airport to provide natural gas to the Paulsboro Refinery in New Jersey.2 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Petitioner, by letter dated February 5, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice).3 The Notice also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205.4 In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding PNGPC violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,000 for the alleged violation. The warning item required no further action but warned Respondent to correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action. PNGPC responded to the Notice by letter dated March 5, 2021 (Response).5 Petitioner did not contest the underlying allegation of violation described in Item 1 of the Notice, rather, Petitioner provided an explanation relevant to the proposed civil penalty and requested PHMSA withdraw it. PNGPC waived its right to a hearing by not requesting one. 1 Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Co. LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 1-2021-002 (Final Order) (September 2, 2021) (on file with PHMSA), at 1; see also PHMSA Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (February 5, 2021) (on file with PHMSA), at 1-2. 2 Response to Notice of Probable Violation submitted by Thomas J. McLane, Director, Regulatory Compliance for Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Co. LLC, to Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region for PHMSA, dated March 5, 2021 (Response), at 1. 3 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice), CPF. No. 1-2021-002-NOPV (February 5, 2021). 4 Id. 5 Response, at 1-2.#

12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Page 2 On September 2, 2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 C.F.R. §190.213, the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order, finding that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f).6 The Final Order found that PNGPC violated §192.625(f) by failing to conduct periodic sampling of the gas in its pipeline using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. §190.221, the Final Order assessed a civil penalty of $46,000.7 On September 22, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration (Petition) pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.243.8 PNGPC argued that the civil penalty assessment considerations in the Final Order did not appropriately reflect certain information. It reiterated its request for PHMSA to withdraw the civil penalty. First, regarding good faith, PNGPC contended it attempted to comply with the intention of § 192.625 by getting confirmation from Enbridge that it odorized its natural gas.9 Petitioner stated that because federal mandates required Enbridge to inject odorant, PNGPC did not incorporate a written procedure for periodically sampling the gas in its Operations, Maintenance & Emergency (OM&E) manual. Second, regarding culpability, Petitioner contended that it felt it addressed the intent of § 192.625 by having Enbridge confirm that it properly odorized the gas prior to PNGPC transporting it through its pipeline. PNGPC noted that when PHMSA clarified the intent of § 192.625 it promptly revised its OM&E manual to include a procedure for capturing the information required by the regulation. Third, regarding the gravity of violation, Petitioner contended that, regardless of the pipeline’s location within a high consequence area (HCA), it took appropriate action to assure the gas stream was properly odorized. Finally, regarding safety impact, PNGPC contended that receiving written notice from Enbridge that it odorized the gas was equivalent to taking odorant samples once a year with a device that detects odorant. Petitioner further contended that either method satisfies the intent of § 192.625, therefore, it did not unduly jeopardize the safety of the community and the environment. PNGPC also provided additional facts regarding its pipeline safety system. Having considered the full record and the arguments presented in the Petition, I am denying the Petition and affirming the Final Order and Assessment of Penalty without modification. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of a final order that has been issued pursuant to §190.213. Reconsideration is not an appeal or a completely new review of the record.10 A respondent may ask for correction of an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a 6 Final Order, at 1-2. 7 Id. at 2-4. 8 Petition for Reconsideration to Final Order submitted by Thomas J. McLane, Director, Regulatory Compliance for Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Co. LLC, to Alan Kramer Mayberry, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, dated September 22, 2021 (Petition). 9 Id. at 1. 10 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d).#

12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Page 3 respondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the Final Order. The Associate Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without further proceedings. ANALYSIS Petitioner did not contest the underlying allegation of violation for Item 1 of the Notice in its Response, and did not raise any issues of error in its Petition. As such, the finding of violation as described in the Final Order is not at issue. The only issue for review is the imposition of the civil penalty for Item 1 of the Notice, however, a brief summary of the facts and the law supporting the finding of violation is relevant to my determination on the Petition. Having found Petitioner to be in violation of § 192.625(f), I must now consider whether the Final Order correctly determined the civil penalty. Item 1 in the Final Order found that PNGPC violated § 192.625(f) by failing to conduct periodic sampling of the gas in its pipeline using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. The section states: § 192.625 Odorization of gas. (a)…. (f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this section, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Operators of master meter systems may comply with this requirement by – (1) Receiving written verification from their gas source that the gas has the proper concentration of odorant; and (2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system to confirm that the gas contains odorant. As quoted above, § 192.625(f) requires operators to conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectible. PNGPC contended it attempted to comply with the intention of § 192.625 by getting confirmation from Enbridge, its natural gas supplier, that it odorized its gas.11 This interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the regulation.12 The plain language of the regulation reveals nothing indicating that such confirmation satisfies the requirements of § 192.625(f). Section § 192.625 is clear that the operator of the pipeline facility is responsible 11 Petition, at 1. 12 See Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 980 F.3d 109, 116 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“Where [] an agency’s regulation is unambiguous, the court must give effect to the regulation’s plain meaning.”); see also Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 53 F.3d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1995), as corrected (June 19, 1995) (“[W]e must ask whether the regulated party received, or should have received, notice of the agency’s interpretation in the most obvious way of all: by reading the regulations.”).#

12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Page 4 for assuring adequate concentration of the odorant within its pipeline and for periodically verifying that the concentration is adequate through the specific means allowed by § 192.625(f). Moreover, receipt of written documentation from Enbridge that it odorized its gas would only render Petitioner in compliance with §192.625(f) if PNGPC were a master meter operator, and even then, only if Petitioner performed periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system. PNGPC is not a master meter operator. Even if Petitioner were a master meter operator, it did not carry out the required “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system. For these reasons, I do not find Petitioner’s interpretation of the regulation persuasive. Petitioner did not seek review of the finding of violation, as such, the finding of violation for Item 1 of the Notice, as described in the Final Order, is affirmed. ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY The Final Order assessed a civil penalty of $46,000. In assessing the civil penalty for this item, I applied the statutory civil penalty assessment factors including the nature, circumstances, gravity, and culpability of this violation.13 In its Petition, PNGPC provided additional information regarding the following points: good faith, culpability, gravity of violation, and safety impact.14 As discussed above, Petitioner’s interpretation of § 192.625(f) is not persuasive. Therefore, my assessment of the good faith and culpability criteria remains unchanged. PNGPC did not have reasonable justification for non-compliance. While Petitioner took measures to correct the violation of § 192.625(f), those actions were taken after PHMSA identified the violation. No credit will be given for good faith or culpability. Regarding the gravity of the violation and the safety impact, Petitioner contended that, regardless of the pipeline’s location within an HCA, it took appropriate action to assure the gas stream was properly odorized.15 It also contended that its actions did not unduly jeopardize the safety of the community and the environment.16 I find these contentions unpersuasive. As discussed above, PNGPC’s interpretation that it took appropriate action to assure the gas stream was properly odorized is contrary to the plain language of § 192.625(f). The violation occurred within an HCA.17 The failure affected all 2.5 miles of Paulsboro pipeline system, which includes 0.5 miles of high consequence pipeline. As discussed in the Final Order, the importance of verifying that gas is properly odorized is critical for public safety to ensure a leak can be detected by persons with a normal sense of smell.18 13 49 U.S.C. § 60122(b). 14 Petition, at 1. 15 Petition, at 1-2. 16 Id. 17 Violation Report, at 9. 18 Final Order, at 4.#

12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 6CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Page 5 I have also reviewed the additional information PNGPC provided regarding its pipeline safety system.19 Petitioner did not provide any explanation for not including this new information prior to issuance of the Final Order.20 The information does not address the nature, circumstances, gravity, and culpability of the specific violation, that is, PNGPC’s failure to conduct periodic sampling of the gas in its pipeline using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Therefore, I find it does not support a change to the assessed civil penalty. Based on the forgoing, I affirm the civil penalty for violation of § 192.625(f). RELIEF DENIED Based on the information provided in the Petition, a review of the record, and for the reasons stated above, I affirm the Final Order and the Assessment of Penalty without modification. Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Decision. 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. Failure to pay the $46,000 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. This Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding. December 8, 2021 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety 19 Petition, at 2. 20 49 C.F.R. §190.243(b).#

12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 1Official PDFSeptember 2, 2021 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: thomas.nimbley@pfbenergy.com Thomas Nimbley Chairman and Chief Executive Officer PBF Logistics LP 1 Sylvan Way, Second Floor Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Re: CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Dear Mr. Nimbley: Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of violation and assesses a civil penalty of $46,000 against your subsidiary, Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This enforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by electronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission 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. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA Mr. Thomas J. McLane, Director – Regulatory Compliance, PBF Energy Inc., thomas.mclane@pbfenergy.com Mr. Jim Fedena, Senior Vice President – Logistics, PBF Energy Inc., jim.fedena@pbfenergy.com CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED#

12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837)_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 ) ) ) Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC, a subsidiary of PBF Logistics LP, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________________) ) CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV FINAL ORDER From February 27, 2020 through October 2, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC (PNGPC or Respondent), a subsidiary of PBF Logistics LP, in Goucester, New Jersey and Delaware, Pennsylvania. PNGPC has a single 2.58-mile long pipeline running from another operator’s transmission line northwest of Philadelphia International Airport to the Paulsboro Refining Company refinery in Paulsboro, New Jersey. As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent, by letter dated February 5, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that PNGPC had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,000 for the alleged violation. The warning item required no further action, but warned Respondent to correct the probable violation or face possible future enforcement action. PNGPC responded to the Notice by letter dated March 5, 2021 (Response). The company did not contest the allegation of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested that the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one. FINDING OF VIOLATION In its Response, PNGPC did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part 192, as follows:#

12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 3CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Page 2 Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f), which states: § 192.625 Odorization of gas. (a) . . . . (f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this section, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable . . . . The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to conduct periodic sampling of the gas in its pipeline using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Specifically, the Notice alleged that PNGPC’s form F-192.625, dated October 2015, indicated that gas odorant levels would be verified by sniff and/or laboratory analysis, and that PNGPC was unable to provide any records of instrumented sampling between 2017 and 2020 for its transmission pipeline. Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation, provided an explanation, and requested withdrawal of the civil penalty, which is discussed in more detail below. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using appropriate instrumentation to determine the percentage of gas in the air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. This finding of violation will be considered a prior offense 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.1 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; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA. In addition, I may consider the 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 $46,000 for the violation cited above. Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f), for failing to conduct periodic sampling of the gas in its pipeline using an 1 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.#

12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 4CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Page 3 instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. In its Response, PNGPC requested that PHMSA rescind the civil penalty because “PNGPC had procedures in place to assure the natural gas was being odorized, immediately revised its odorant sampling procedure and corrosion inspection forms as recommended by the inspector, has had no previous violations, and no impact to the environment associated with these issues.” When proposing a civil penalty amount in this matter, PHMSA considered the above-listed assessment criteria, as supported by information in the Notice and the Pipeline Safety Violation Report (PSVR). I have reviewed those materials, the evidence in the case file, and Respondent’s explanations, and find the assessment criteria were properly considered and therefore the proposed penalty amount is appropriate. With regard to good faith, I find that Respondent did not have a reasonable justification for its non-compliance. Although Respondent had procedures in place and written verification from another operator that the gas was odorized, Respondent did not actually follow its procedures or verify that the gas in its pipeline was properly odorized as required by the regulation using instrumented periodic sampling. With regard to the degree of Respondent’s culpability, I find Respondent failed to comply with an applicable requirement. Although Respondent has now taken measures to correct the violation, those actions were taken after PHMSA had already identified the violation during an inspection and therefore do not warrant a lower civil penalty amount. With regard to the history of Respondent’s prior offenses, I agree that Respondent did not have any prior violations in the five years preceding issuance of the Notice. This information was noted in the PSVR and was factored into the proposed civil penalty amount, which resulted in a proposed penalty that was lower than it would have been if Respondent had prior violations. Finally, with regard to the gravity of the violation, I find that the violation occurred within a high consequence area (HCA), which warrants an elevated penalty. I reject the contention that the violation only minimally affected safety notwithstanding the fact that it did not negatively affect the environment. The importance of verifying that gas is properly odorized is critical for public safety to ensure a leak can be detected by persons with a normal sense of smell. This is even more critical in an HCA with higher population. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $46,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f). 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.#

12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf, page 5CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV Page 4 Failure to pay the $46,000 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. WARNING ITEM With respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged probable violation of Part 192, but identified it as a warning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for: 49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its manual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities by not recording grading of the atmospheric corrosion condition observed during a 2020 atmospheric corrosion inspection. If OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future enforcement action. 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 the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief 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 any corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a stay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final administrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived. The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.5. September 2, 2021 ___________________________________ __________________________ Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety#