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

- **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:** Not available
- **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.

Official case documents:

12021002NOPV_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

12021002NOPV_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

12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_Final%20Order_09022021_(20-171837).pdf

12021002NOPV_Final Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_Final%20Order_09022021_(20-171837)_text.pdf

12021002NOPV_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

12021002NOPV_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

12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837).pdf

12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12021002NOPV/12021002NOPV_PCP_02052021_(20-171837)_text.pdf

12021002NOPV_Decision on Petition for Reconsideration_12082021_(20-171837)_text.pdf

December 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



U.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.



CPF 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).



CPF 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.”).



CPF 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.



CPF 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

September 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



U.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:



CPF 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.



CPF 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.



CPF 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
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 29251