{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 12021002NOPV","title":"PAULSBORO NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2021-02-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 192.605(a), 192.625(f).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12021002nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12021002nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12021002nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12021002NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving PAULSBORO NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 192.605(a),  192.625(f). The case was opened on 2021-02-05 and is reported as closed as of 2021-12-10. Proposed civil penalty: $46,600. Assessed civil penalty: $46,000. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837).pdf\n\n12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_Decision%20on%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf\n\n12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_Final%20Order_09022021_(20-171837).pdf\n\n12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_Final%20Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf\n\n12021002NOPV_Operator Petition for Reconsideration_09222021_(20-171837).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_Operator%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration_09222021_(20-171837).pdf\n\n12021002NOPV_Operator Response to Notice_03052021_(20-171837).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03052021_(20-171837).pdf\n\n12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837).pdf\n\n12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837)_text.pdf\n\n12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf\n\nDecember 8, 2021\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: thomas.nimbley@pbfenergy.com\nMr. Thomas Nimbley\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\nPBF Logistics LP\n1 Sylvan Way, 2nd Floor\nParsippany, New Jersey 07054\nRe: CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nDear Mr. Nimbley:\nEnclosed please find the Decision on Petition for Reconsideration (Decision) issued in the\nabove-referenced case. For the reasons explained therein, the Decision denies your petition. The\npenalty payment terms remain unchanged from those set forth in the Final Order issued\nSeptember 2, 2021. This Decision constitutes the final administrative action in this proceeding.\nService of this Decision by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Thomas J. McLane, Director, Regulatory Compliance, PBF Logistics LP,\nthomas.mclane@pbfenergy.com\nMr. Jim Fedena, Senior Vice President - Logistics, PBF Energy Inc.,\njim.fedena@pbfenergy.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n__________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\nPaulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\na subsidiary of PBF Logistics LP, )\n)\n)\n)\nRespondent. )\n__________________________________________)\nDECISION ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nFrom February 27, 2020, through October 2, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC (PNGPC or Petitioner), a subsidiary of\nPBF Logistics LP, in Gloucester, New Jersey and Delaware, Pennsylvania.1 PNGPC’s natural\ngas pipeline takes delivery from Enbridge Natural Gas Company (Enbridge) in Pennsylvania\nnear the Philadelphia International Airport to provide natural gas to the Paulsboro Refinery in\nNew Jersey.2 As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued\nto Petitioner, by letter dated February 5, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil\nPenalty (Notice).3 The Notice also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205.4 In\naccordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding PNGPC violated 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.625(f) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,000 for the alleged violation. The\nwarning item required no further action but warned Respondent to correct the probable violation\nor face possible future enforcement action.\nPNGPC responded to the Notice by letter dated March 5, 2021 (Response).5 Petitioner did not\ncontest the underlying allegation of violation described in Item 1 of the Notice, rather, Petitioner\nprovided an explanation relevant to the proposed civil penalty and requested PHMSA withdraw\nit. PNGPC waived its right to a hearing by not requesting one.\n1 Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Co. LLC, Final Order, CPF No. 1-2021-002 (Final Order) (September 2, 2021)\n(on file with PHMSA), at 1; see also PHMSA Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), (February 5, 2021) (on\nfile with PHMSA), at 1-2.\n2 Response to Notice of Probable Violation submitted by Thomas J. McLane, Director, Regulatory Compliance for\nPaulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Co. LLC, to Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region for PHMSA, dated March\n5, 2021 (Response), at 1.\n3 Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty (Notice), CPF. No. 1-2021-002-NOPV (February 5,\n2021).\n4 Id.\n5 Response, at 1-2.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nPage 2\nOn September 2, 2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 60118 and 60122 and 49 C.F.R. §190.213, the\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety (Associate Administrator) issued a Final Order,\nfinding that Petitioner violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f).6 The Final Order found that PNGPC\nviolated §192.625(f) by failing to conduct periodic sampling of the gas in its pipeline using an\ninstrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily\ndetectable. Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. §190.221, the Final\nOrder assessed a civil penalty of $46,000.7\nOn September 22, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for reconsideration (Petition) pursuant to 49\nC.F.R. § 190.243.8 PNGPC argued that the civil penalty assessment considerations in the Final\nOrder did not appropriately reflect certain information. It reiterated its request for PHMSA to\nwithdraw the civil penalty.\nFirst, regarding good faith, PNGPC contended it attempted to comply with the intention of\n§ 192.625 by getting confirmation from Enbridge that it odorized its natural gas.9 Petitioner\nstated that because federal mandates required Enbridge to inject odorant, PNGPC did not\nincorporate a written procedure for periodically sampling the gas in its Operations, Maintenance\n& Emergency (OM&E) manual. Second, regarding culpability, Petitioner contended that it felt it\naddressed the intent of § 192.625 by having Enbridge confirm that it properly odorized the gas\nprior to PNGPC transporting it through its pipeline. PNGPC noted that when PHMSA clarified\nthe intent of § 192.625 it promptly revised its OM&E manual to include a procedure for\ncapturing the information required by the regulation. Third, regarding the gravity of violation,\nPetitioner contended that, regardless of the pipeline’s location within a high consequence area\n(HCA), it took appropriate action to assure the gas stream was properly odorized. Finally,\nregarding safety impact, PNGPC contended that receiving written notice from Enbridge that it\nodorized the gas was equivalent to taking odorant samples once a year with a device that detects\nodorant. Petitioner further contended that either method satisfies the intent of § 192.625,\ntherefore, it did not unduly jeopardize the safety of the community and the environment.\nPNGPC also provided additional facts regarding its pipeline safety system.\nHaving considered the full record and the arguments presented in the Petition, I am denying the\nPetition and affirming the Final Order and Assessment of Penalty without modification.\nSTANDARD OF REVIEW\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, a respondent may petition the Associate Administrator for\nreconsideration of a final order that has been issued pursuant to §190.213. Reconsideration is\nnot an appeal or a completely new review of the record.10 A respondent may ask for correction\nof an error or, in limited circumstances, may present previously unavailable information. If a\n6 Final Order, at 1-2.\n7 Id. at 2-4.\n8 Petition for Reconsideration to Final Order submitted by Thomas J. McLane, Director, Regulatory Compliance for\nPaulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Co. LLC, to Alan Kramer Mayberry, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety,\nPHMSA, dated September 22, 2021 (Petition).\n9 Id. at 1.\n10 49 C.F.R. § 190.243(a)-(d).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nPage 3\nrespondent requests consideration of additional facts or arguments, the respondent must submit\nthe reasons they were not presented prior to the issuance of the Final Order. The Associate\nAdministrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, a petition for reconsideration without\nfurther proceedings.\nANALYSIS\nPetitioner did not contest the underlying allegation of violation for Item 1 of the Notice in its\nResponse, and did not raise any issues of error in its Petition. As such, the finding of violation as\ndescribed in the Final Order is not at issue. The only issue for review is the imposition of the\ncivil penalty for Item 1 of the Notice, however, a brief summary of the facts and the law\nsupporting the finding of violation is relevant to my determination on the Petition. Having found\nPetitioner to be in violation of § 192.625(f), I must now consider whether the Final Order\ncorrectly determined the civil penalty.\nItem 1 in the Final Order found that PNGPC violated § 192.625(f) by failing to conduct periodic\nsampling of the gas in its pipeline using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of\ngas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. The section states:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a)….\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with\nthis section, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible\ngases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in\nair at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Operators of master\nmeter systems may comply with this requirement by –\n(1) Receiving written verification from their gas source that the gas\nhas the proper concentration of odorant; and\n(2) Conducting periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system to\nconfirm that the gas contains odorant.\nAs quoted above, § 192.625(f) requires operators to conduct periodic sampling of combustible\ngases using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor\nbecomes readily detectible. PNGPC contended it attempted to comply with the intention of\n§ 192.625 by getting confirmation from Enbridge, its natural gas supplier, that it odorized its\ngas.11\nThis interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the regulation.12 The plain language\nof the regulation reveals nothing indicating that such confirmation satisfies the requirements of\n§ 192.625(f). Section § 192.625 is clear that the operator of the pipeline facility is responsible\n11 Petition, at 1.\n12 See Statewide Bonding, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 980 F.3d 109, 116 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“Where [] an\nagency’s regulation is unambiguous, the court must give effect to the regulation’s plain meaning.”); see also Gen.\nElec. 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\nthe regulated party received, or should have received, notice of the agency’s interpretation in the most obvious way\nof all: by reading the regulations.”).\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nPage 4\nfor assuring adequate concentration of the odorant within its pipeline and for periodically\nverifying that the concentration is adequate through the specific means allowed by § 192.625(f).\nMoreover, receipt of written documentation from Enbridge that it odorized its gas would only\nrender Petitioner in compliance with §192.625(f) if PNGPC were a master meter operator, and\neven then, only if Petitioner performed periodic “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system.\nPNGPC is not a master meter operator. Even if Petitioner were a master meter operator, it did\nnot carry out the required “sniff” tests at the extremities of the system.\nFor these reasons, I do not find Petitioner’s interpretation of the regulation persuasive. Petitioner\ndid not seek review of the finding of violation, as such, the finding of violation for Item 1 of the\nNotice, as described in the Final Order, is affirmed.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nThe Final Order assessed a civil penalty of $46,000. In assessing the civil penalty for this item, I\napplied the statutory civil penalty assessment factors including the nature, circumstances,\ngravity, and culpability of this violation.13\nIn its Petition, PNGPC provided additional information regarding the following points: good\nfaith, culpability, gravity of violation, and safety impact.14\nAs discussed above, Petitioner’s interpretation of § 192.625(f) is not persuasive. Therefore, my\nassessment of the good faith and culpability criteria remains unchanged. PNGPC did not have\nreasonable justification for non-compliance. While Petitioner took measures to correct the\nviolation of § 192.625(f), those actions were taken after PHMSA identified the violation. No\ncredit will be given for good faith or culpability.\nRegarding the gravity of the violation and the safety impact, Petitioner contended that, regardless\nof the pipeline’s location within an HCA, it took appropriate action to assure the gas stream was\nproperly odorized.15 It also contended that its actions did not unduly jeopardize the safety of the\ncommunity and the environment.16\nI find these contentions unpersuasive. As discussed above, PNGPC’s interpretation that it took\nappropriate action to assure the gas stream was properly odorized is contrary to the plain\nlanguage of § 192.625(f). The violation occurred within an HCA.17 The failure affected all 2.5\nmiles of Paulsboro pipeline system, which includes 0.5 miles of high consequence pipeline. As\ndiscussed in the Final Order, the importance of verifying that gas is properly odorized is critical\nfor public safety to ensure a leak can be detected by persons with a normal sense of smell.18\n13 49 U.S.C. § 60122(b).\n14 Petition, at 1.\n15 Petition, at 1-2.\n16 Id.\n17 Violation Report, at 9.\n18 Final Order, at 4.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nPage 5\nI have also reviewed the additional information PNGPC provided regarding its pipeline safety\nsystem.19 Petitioner did not provide any explanation for not including this new information prior\nto issuance of the Final Order.20 The information does not address the nature, circumstances,\ngravity, and culpability of the specific violation, that is, PNGPC’s failure to conduct periodic\nsampling of the gas in its pipeline using an instrument capable of determining the percentage of\ngas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Therefore, I find it does not support a\nchange to the assessed civil penalty.\nBased on the forgoing, I affirm the civil penalty for violation of § 192.625(f).\nRELIEF DENIED\nBased on the information provided in the Petition, a review of the record, and for the reasons\nstated above, I affirm the Final Order and the Assessment of Penalty without modification.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service of this Decision. Federal\nregulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through\nthe Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury.\nDetailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should\nbe directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration,\nMike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma\n79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the $46,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nThis Decision is the final administrative action in this proceeding.\nDecember 8, 2021\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n19 Petition, at 2.\n20 49 C.F.R. §190.243(b).\n\n12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf\n\nSeptember 2, 2021\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: thomas.nimbley@pfbenergy.com\nThomas Nimbley\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\nPBF Logistics LP\n1 Sylvan Way, Second Floor\nParsippany, New Jersey 07054\nRe: CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nDear Mr. Nimbley:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes a finding of\nviolation and assesses a civil penalty of $46,000 against your subsidiary, Paulsboro Natural Gas\nPipeline Company LLC. The penalty payment terms are set forth in the Final Order. This\nenforcement action closes automatically upon receipt of payment. Service of the Final Order by\nelectronic mail is effective upon the date of transmission as provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.\nThank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nAlan K. Mayberry\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\nEnclosure\ncc: Mr. Robert Burrough, Director, Eastern Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA\nMr. Thomas J. McLane, Director – Regulatory Compliance, PBF Energy Inc.,\nthomas.mclane@pbfenergy.com\nMr. Jim Fedena, Senior Vice President – Logistics, PBF Energy Inc.,\njim.fedena@pbfenergy.com\nCONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\nU.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION\nOFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20590\n___________________________________________\nIn the Matter of )\n)\n)\nPaulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC, a subsidiary of PBF Logistics LP, )\n)\nRespondent. )\n___________________________________________)\n) CPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom February 27, 2020 through October 2, 2020, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a\nrepresentative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office\nof Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and\nrecords of Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Company LLC (PNGPC or Respondent), a subsidiary\nof PBF Logistics LP, in Goucester, New Jersey and Delaware, Pennsylvania. PNGPC has a\nsingle 2.58-mile long pipeline running from another operator’s transmission line northwest of\nPhiladelphia International Airport to the Paulsboro Refining Company refinery in Paulsboro,\nNew Jersey.\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated February 5, 2021, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty\n(Notice), which also included a warning pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205. In accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that PNGPC had violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f)\nand proposed assessing a civil penalty of $46,000 for the alleged violation. The warning item\nrequired no further action, but warned Respondent to correct the probable violation or face\npossible future enforcement action.\nPNGPC responded to the Notice by letter dated March 5, 2021 (Response). The company did\nnot contest the allegation of violation but provided an explanation of its actions and requested\nthat the proposed civil penalty be eliminated. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore\nhas waived its right to one.\nFINDING OF VIOLATION\nIn its Response, PNGPC did not contest the allegation in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R.\nPart 192, as follows:\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nPage 2\nItem 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f), which states:\n§ 192.625 Odorization of gas.\n(a) . . . .\n(f) To assure the proper concentration of odorant in accordance with this\nsection, each operator must conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases\nusing an instrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at\nwhich the odor becomes readily detectable . . . .\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by failing to conduct\nperiodic sampling of the gas in its pipeline using an instrument capable of determining the\npercentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily detectable. Specifically, the Notice\nalleged that PNGPC’s form F-192.625, dated October 2015, indicated that gas odorant levels\nwould be verified by sniff and/or laboratory analysis, and that PNGPC was unable to provide any\nrecords of instrumented sampling between 2017 and 2020 for its transmission pipeline.\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation, provided an explanation, and requested\nwithdrawal of the civil penalty, which is discussed in more detail below. Accordingly, based\nupon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f) by\nfailing to conduct periodic sampling of combustible gases using appropriate instrumentation to\ndetermine the percentage of gas in the air at which the odor becomes readily detectable.\nThis finding of violation will be considered a prior offense in any subsequent enforcement action\ntaken against Respondent.\nASSESSMENT OF PENALTY\nUnder 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed\n$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any\nrelated series of violations.1\nIn determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. § 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I\nmust consider the following criteria: the nature, circumstances, and gravity of the violation,\nincluding adverse impact on the environment; the degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history\nof Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that the penalty may have on its ability to continue\ndoing business; the good faith of Respondent in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety\nregulations; and self-disclosure or actions to correct a violation prior to discovery by PHMSA.\nIn addition, I may consider the economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction\nbecause of subsequent damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice\nproposed a total civil penalty of $46,000 for the violation cited above.\nItem 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,000 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 192.625(f), for failing to conduct periodic sampling of the gas in its pipeline using an\n1 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nPage 3\ninstrument capable of determining the percentage of gas in air at which the odor becomes readily\ndetectable. In its Response, PNGPC requested that PHMSA rescind the civil penalty because\n“PNGPC had procedures in place to assure the natural gas was being odorized, immediately\nrevised its odorant sampling procedure and corrosion inspection forms as recommended by the\ninspector, has had no previous violations, and no impact to the environment associated with these\nissues.”\nWhen proposing a civil penalty amount in this matter, PHMSA considered the above-listed\nassessment criteria, as supported by information in the Notice and the Pipeline Safety Violation\nReport (PSVR). I have reviewed those materials, the evidence in the case file, and Respondent’s\nexplanations, and find the assessment criteria were properly considered and therefore the\nproposed penalty amount is appropriate.\nWith regard to good faith, I find that Respondent did not have a reasonable justification for its\nnon-compliance. Although Respondent had procedures in place and written verification from\nanother operator that the gas was odorized, Respondent did not actually follow its procedures or\nverify that the gas in its pipeline was properly odorized as required by the regulation using\ninstrumented periodic sampling.\nWith regard to the degree of Respondent’s culpability, I find Respondent failed to comply with\nan applicable requirement. Although Respondent has now taken measures to correct the\nviolation, those actions were taken after PHMSA had already identified the violation during an\ninspection and therefore do not warrant a lower civil penalty amount.\nWith regard to the history of Respondent’s prior offenses, I agree that Respondent did not have\nany prior violations in the five years preceding issuance of the Notice. This information was\nnoted in the PSVR and was factored into the proposed civil penalty amount, which resulted in a\nproposed penalty that was lower than it would have been if Respondent had prior violations.\nFinally, with regard to the gravity of the violation, I find that the violation occurred within a high\nconsequence area (HCA), which warrants an elevated penalty. I reject the contention that the\nviolation only minimally affected safety notwithstanding the fact that it did not negatively affect\nthe environment. The importance of verifying that gas is properly odorized is critical for public\nsafety to ensure a leak can be detected by persons with a normal sense of smell. This is even\nmore critical in an HCA with higher population.\nAccordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess\nRespondent a civil penalty of $46,000 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 192.625(f).\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days of service. Federal regulations (49\nC.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer through the Federal\nReserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Detailed\ninstructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire transfers should be\ndirected to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation Administration, Mike\nMonroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 79169.\nThe Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\n\n\n\nCPF No. 1-2021-002-NOPV\nPage 4\nFailure to pay the $46,000 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate\nin accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to\nthose same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if\npayment is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty\nmay result in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district\ncourt of the United States.\nWARNING ITEM\nWith respect to Item 2, the Notice alleged probable violation of Part 192, but identified it as a\nwarning item pursuant to § 190.205. The warning was for:\n49 C.F.R. § 192.605(a) (Item 2) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow its\nmanual of written procedures for conducting operations and maintenance\nactivities by not recording grading of the atmospheric corrosion condition\nobserved during a 2020 atmospheric corrosion inspection.\nIf OPS finds a violation of this provision in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject\nto future enforcement action.\nUnder 49 C.F.R. § 190.243, Respondent may submit a Petition for Reconsideration of this Final\nOrder to the Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue, SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590, with a copy sent to the Office of\nChief Counsel, PHMSA, at the same address, no later than 20 days after receipt of service of the\nFinal Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a brief statement of the issue(s)\nand meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a petition automatically\nstays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the order, including any\ncorrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon request, grants a\nstay. If Respondent submits payment of the civil penalty, the Final Order becomes the final\nadministrative decision and the right to petition for reconsideration is waived.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nSeptember 2, 2021\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety","truncated":false,"body_characters":29251}