{"operation":"document","citation":"CPF 12022028NOPV","title":"TOLEDO REFINING COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation","source_type":"enforcement","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2022-03-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 194.107(c)(1)(viii), 195.402(a), 195.403(c), 195.404(c)(3), 195.406(a), 195.452(b)(5), 195.452(i)(3), 195.61(a)(1).","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12022028nopv.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12022028nopv.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-12022028nopv","source_url":"https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/12022028NOPV","body":"Notice of Probable Violation involving TOLEDO REFINING COMPANY, LLC. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 194.107(c)(1)(viii),  195.402(a),  195.403(c),  195.404(c)(3),  195.406(a),  195.452(b)(5),  195.452(i)(3),  195.61(a)(1). The case was opened on 2022-03-31 and is reported as closed as of 2023-07-13. Proposed civil penalty: $81,400. Assessed civil penalty: $65,900. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.\n\nOfficial case documents:\n\n12022028NOPV_Closure Letter_07132023_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_Closure%20Letter_07132023_(21-199000).pdf\n\n12022028NOPV_Closure Letter_07132023_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_Closure%20Letter_07132023_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\n12022028NOPV_Final Order_03222023_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_Final%20Order_03222023_(21-199000).pdf\n\n12022028NOPV_Final Order_03222023_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_Final%20Order_03222023_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\n12022028NOPV_PCO PCP_03312022_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_PCO%20PCP_03312022_(21-199000).pdf\n\n12022028NOPV_PCO PCP_03312022_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_PCO%20PCP_03312022_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\n12022028NOPV_Final Order_03222023_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\nMarch 22, 2023\nVIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: thomas.nimbley@pbfenergy.com\nMr. Thomas Nimbley\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\nPBF Energy Inc.\n1 Sylvan Way, Second Floor\nParsippany, New Jersey 07054\nRe: CPF No. 1-2022-028-NOPV\nDear Mr. Nimbley:\nEnclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of\nviolation, withdraws one allegation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $65,900, and specifies\nactions that need to be taken by Toledo Refining Company LLC, a subsidiary of PBF Energy\nInc., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in\nthe Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order are\ncompleted, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be\nclosed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and\nacknowledgement of receipt 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. Gregory Thomas, Senior Logistics and Compliance Coordinator, Toledo Refining\nCompany LLC, gregory.thomas@pbfenergy.com\n\n\n\nMr. Michael Gudgeon, Refinery Manager, Toledo Refining Company LLC,\nmichael.gudgeon@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____________________________________\n)\nIn the Matter of )\n)\nToledo Refining Company LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2022-028-NOPV\na subsidiary of PBF Energy Inc., )\n)\nRespondent. )\n____________________________________)\nFINAL ORDER\nFrom August 9 through September 15, 2021, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a representative of\nthe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety\n(OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and records of Toledo\nRefining Company LLC (TRC or Respondent) in Toledo, Ohio. TRC, a subsidiary of PBF\nEnergy Inc., operates the Toledo Refinery, including a pipeline that transports crude oil from the\nmain refinery to the marine terminal.1\nAs a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,\nby letter dated March 31, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and\nProposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice\nproposed finding that TRC committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed assessing\na civil penalty of $81,400 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering Respondent to take\ncertain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included an additional four\nwarning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to correct the\nprobable violations or face possible future enforcement action.\nAfter requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, TRC responded to the Notice by\nletter dated May 31, 2022 (Response). TRC contested several of the allegations, offered\nadditional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be\nreduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.\nFINDINGS OF VIOLATION\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:\n1 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), at 1 (on file with PHMSA); see also PBF Energy Inc.\nwebsite, available at https://www.pbfenergy.com/refineries/ (last accessed March 13, 2023).\n\n\n\nItem 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.61(a)(1), which states:\n§ 195.61 National Pipeline Mapping System.\n(a) Each operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline facility must provide\nthe following geospatial data to PHMSA for that facility:\n(1) Geospatial data, attributes, metadata and transmittal letter\nappropriate for use in the National Pipeline Mapping System. Acceptable\nformats and additional information are specified in the NPMS Operator\nStandards manual available at www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov or by contacting\nthe PHMSA Geographic Information Systems Manager at (202) 366-4595.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.61(a)(1) by failing to provide to\nPHMSA geospatial data appropriate for use in the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS).\nSpecifically, the Notice alleged that TRC failed to provide accurate geospatial data of its pipeline\nfacilities when it reported an abandoned pipeline as active.\nIn its Response, TRC contested the allegation of violation. Specifically, TRC argued that the\npipeline was not abandoned, but was taken out-of-service and idled.2 As TRC acknowledged in\nits Response, PHMSA regulations do not recognize an “idled” pipeline status.3 Pipelines are\nactive until they are abandoned. A pipeline is abandoned when it is “permanently removed from\nservice.”4\nDuring the inspection, TRC personnel indicated to the PHMSA inspector that the pipeline was\nbelieved to be formally abandoned in 2009 by the prior operator.5 In its Response, however,\nTRC clarified that the prior operator actually considered the line as being “Out-of-Service, Long\nTerm” and not abandoned.6 Accordingly, TRC argued it was not improper to continue reporting\nthe pipeline as active.7 Going forward, TRC stated that it has now decided to permanently\nabandon the pipeline and noted that it would document and report the abandonment according to\nthe applicable regulations.\n2 Response, at 2.\n3 See PHMSA Advisory Bulletin “Pipeline Safety: Clarification of Terms Relating to Pipeline Operational Status,”\n81 FR 54512, Aug. 16, 2016 (explaining that “PHMSA regulations do not recognize an ‘idle’ status for hazardous\nliquid or gas pipelines. The regulations consider pipelines to be either active and fully subject to all relevant parts of\nthe safety regulations or abandoned).\n4 49 C.F.R. § 195.2. For a further discussion of pipeline status reporting for NPMS, See National Pipeline Mapping\nSystem Standards for Pipeline, Liquified Natural Gas and Breakout Tank Operator Submissions, October 2017,\navailable at https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Operator Standards.pdf.\n5 Notice, at 2 (“Toledo stated that the 6-inch 16-233 hazardous liquid dock line (Line 16-233), acquired by Toledo\nin 2011, was believed to be formally abandoned and removed from service in 2009 by its prior operator”).\n6 Response, at 2.\n7 TRC further asserted that in 2016, PHMSA “modified their definitions” of active and abandoned. This assertion is\nnot accurate. In 2016, PHMSA issued an advisory bulletin reminding operators that idled pipelines were still active\nand were required to comply with applicable safety regulations until they were abandoned. The advisory bulletin\ndid not change the meaning of active and abandoned.\n\n\n\nHaving considered the record, I find the prior operator’s treatment of the pipeline, which\nincluded purging it of product, deploying a nitrogen blanket, and capping the ends, did not\nconstitute abandonment because the pipeline was only considered to be out-of-service. This\ntreatment could be reversed in order to allow the pipeline to be used in the future. Since there is\ninsufficient evidence to prove the pipeline had been permanently abandoned, I do not find\nRespondent was incorrect in reporting the pipeline as active. Accordingly, after considering all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.61(a)(1) as alleged in the\nNotice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn.\nItem 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c), which states:\n§ 195.403 Emergency response training.\n(a) . . .\n(c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors maintain a\nthorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency response procedures\nestablished under 195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure\ncompliance.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c) by failing to require and\nverify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency\nresponse procedures established under § 195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure\ncompliance. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, TRC failed to\nprovide any records demonstrating that it verified its supervisors maintained requisite knowledge\nof its emergency response procedures for which they are responsible to ensure compliance.8\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.9 Accordingly, based upon a review of all\nof the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c) by failing to require and\nverify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency\nresponse procedures established under § 195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure\ncompliance.\nItem 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a), which states:\n§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.\n(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal\noperations, no operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds\nany of the following:\n(1) The internal design pressure of the pipe determined in accordance\nwith § 195.106. However, for steel pipe in pipelines being converted under\n§ 195.5, if one or more factors of the design formula (§ 195.106) are\nunknown, one of the following pressures is to be used as design pressure:\n8 See Notice at 4 (stating that TRC’s “sign-in sheets” from training sessions failed to demonstrate what topics\nsupervisors were trained on).\n9 Response, at 3.\n\n\n\n(i) Eighty percent of the first test pressure that produces yield under\nsection N5.0 of appendix N of ASME/ANSI B31.8 (incorporated by\nreference, see § 195.3), reduced by the appropriate factors in §§ 195.106 (a)\nand (e); or\n(ii) If the pipe is 12 3/4 inch (324 mm) or less outside diameter and\nis not tested to yield under this paragraph, 200 p.s.i. (1379 kPa) gage.\n(2) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.\n(3) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which\nhas been pressure tested under subpart E of this part.\n(4) Eighty percent of the factory test pressure or of the prototype test\npressure for any individually installed component which is excepted from\ntesting under § 195.305.\n(5) For pipelines under §§ 195.302(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) that have not been\npressure tested under subpart E of this part, 80 percent of the test pressure\nor highest operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for 4 or\nmore continuous hours that can be demonstrated by recording charts or logs\nmade at the time the test or operations were conducted.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a) by operating a pipeline at a\npressure that exceeds the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of the pipeline. Specifically, the\nNotice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, TRC could not provide records to\ndemonstrate that it had established the MOP in accordance with the requirements set forth in\n§ 195.406(a).10\nIn its Response, TRC contested the allegation of violation, and explained that it previously\nprovided its MOP calculation in an email to PHMSA during the inspection.11 Although TRC\nprovided an MOP calculation to PHMSA, it failed to include certain details required by\n§ 195.406(a). For example, the MOP calculation failed to confirm the lowest design pressures of\nall components on the pipeline pursuant to § 195.406(a)(2) and lacked detail regarding the\napplicability of the requirements of § 195.406(a)(4). Accordingly, after considering all of the\nevidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a) by operating a pipeline at a\npressure that exceeds the MOP of the pipeline.\nItem 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3), which states:\n§ 195.452 Integrity management.\n(a) . . .\n(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to\nprotect the high consequence area?\n(1) . . .\n10 See Notice, at 5 (stating that “[n]one of the documents provided by [TRC] included details of an overall calculation\nof the MOP on the pipeline considering all factors required by § 195.406(a). When PHMSA asked for additional\ninformation regarding records related to calculation of the MOP on the pipeline, Toledo did not provide any additional\ninformation. Toledo stated that the MOP was 701 psi but did not have a calculation to support that assertion”).\n11 Response, at 4 and Attachment 8.\n\n\n\n(3) Leak detection. An operator must have a means to detect leaks on its\npipeline system. An operator must evaluate the capability of its leak\ndetection means and modify, as necessary, to protect the high consequence\narea. An operator's evaluation must, at least, consider, the following factors\n- length and size of the pipeline, type of product carried, the pipeline's\nproximity to the high consequence area, the swiftness of leak detection,\nlocation of nearest response personnel, leak history, and risk assessment\nresults.\nThe Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3) by failing to evaluate the\ncapability of its leak detection means and modify, as necessary, to protect the high consequence\narea. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, TRC failed to provide\nany records demonstrating that it conducted a leak detection analysis that considered, at a\nminimum, all the factors set forth in § 195.452(i)(3).\nRespondent did not contest this allegation of violation.12 Accordingly, based upon a review of\nall of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3) by failing to\nevaluate the capability of its leak detection means and modify, as necessary, to protect the high\nconsequence area.\nThese findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement\naction taken 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.13\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 $81,400 for the violations cited above.\nItem 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.403(c), for failing to require and verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge\nof that portion of the emergency response procedures established under § 195.402 for which they\n12 Response, at 5.\n13 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.\n\n\n\nare response to ensure compliance. In its Response, TRC requested a reduction in the civil\npenalty because it believed the penalty was excessive, and it took action to correct the non-\ncompliance after the PHMSA inspection.\n14 Addressing the noncompliance post-inspection,\nhowever, does not entitle Respondent a civil penalty credit, as PHMSA has previously\ndetermined in other cases.\n15\nPipeline safety was minimally affected, which is appropriate reflected in the proposed civil\npenalty amount. TRC failed to comply with an applicable requirement, and did not provide a\nreasonable justification for its failure to do so. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a\ncivil penalty of $19,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c).\nItem 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.406(a), for operating a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the MOP of the pipeline. In its\nResponse, TRC requested a reduction in the civil penalty because it believed the penalty was\nexcessive, and it took action to correct the non-compliance after the PHMSA inspection.16 In a\nrecommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director\nrecommended withdrawing the penalty for this violation in consideration of the additional MOP\ncalculations that were provided that, while not fully compliant, demonstrated there was minimal\nimpact on pipeline safety. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby withdraw the proposed penalty for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a).\nItem 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.452(i)(3), for failing to evaluate the capability of its leak detection means and modify, as\nnecessary, to protect the high consequence area. In its Response, TRC requested a reduction in\nthe civil penalty because it believed the penalty was excessive, and it took action to correct the\nnon-compliance after the PHMSA inspection.17 As noted above, however, operators do not\nreceive a credit by taking action to correct the non-compliance after the PHMSA has already\nidentified the violation during an inspection. This violation occurred in a high consequence area,\n14 Response, at 3 and 5.\n15 See In the Matter of North Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Enbridge Inc., Respondent, Final Order,\nCPF No. 3-2022-022-NOPV, 2022 WL 18033746 at *2 (Dec. 19, 2022) (“Next, while PHMSA appreciates\nRespondent's swift corrective measures to comply with pipeline safety regulations, such actions taken after an\ninspection are not a basis to reduce a civil penalty”) (Citing In the Matter of Oasis Midstream Partners LP, a General\nPartner of Oasis Petroleum Inc., Final Order 3-2019-5020, 2020 WL 6870720 at 7 (August 19, 2020) (“While Oasis\nis to be commended for improving its internal processes to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations,\nsuch post-inspection activities do not warrant the withdrawal of, or a reduction in, a proposed civil penalty”)); In the\nMatter of Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, a subsidiary of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, Respondent, Final\nOrder, CPF No. No. 1-2017-1002, 2018 WL 1365570 at *2 (Feb. 9, 2018) (“Respondent's post-inspection corrective\nactions are duly noted, but do not constitute grounds to reduce the penalty because they were taken after PHMSA had\nalready identified the violation”); and Violation Report at 13 (providing for credits when “[a]fter the operator found\nthe non-compliance, the operator took documented action to address the cause of the non-compliance, and was in the\nprocess of correcting the non-compliance before PHMSA learned of the violation” and “After the operator found the\nnon-compliance, the operator took documented action to address the cause of the non-compliance, and corrected the\nnon-compliance before PHMSA learned of the violation.”) (emphasis added).\n16 Response, at 4 and 5.\n17 Response, at 5.\n\n\n\nand TRC failed to provide a reasonable justification for its noncompliance with an applicable\nrequirement. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $46,600 for\nviolation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3).\nIn summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the\nItems cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $65,900.\nPayment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.\nFederal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 89.21(b)(3)) require such payment to be made by wire transfer\nthrough the Federal Reserve Communications System (Fedwire), to the account of the U.S.\nTreasury. Detailed instructions are contained in the enclosure. Questions concerning wire\ntransfers should be directed to: Financial Operations Division (AMK-325), Federal Aviation\nAdministration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 S MacArthur Blvd, Oklahoma City,\nOklahoma 79169. The Financial Operations Division telephone number is (405) 954-8845.\nFailure to pay the civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in\naccordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those\nsame authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment\nis not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result\nin referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the\nUnited States.\nCOMPLIANCE ORDER\nThe Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 5 in the Notice for\nviolations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.61(a)(1), and 195.406(a), respectively. As discussed above, Item\n2 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for that Item are\nnot included in this Order. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the\ntransportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to\ncomply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.\nPursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is\nordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations\napplicable to its operations:\n1. With respect to the violation of § 195.406(a) (Item 5), Respondent must review the\nentirety of its historical records and pipe characteristics and provide a written justification\nwhich confirms the MOP of its pipeline is 701 psi in accordance with 49 C.F.R.\n§ 195.406(a)(1)-(5) within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order. If TRC is unable to\nconfirm through records that this MOP is valid and complies with § 195.406(a)(1)-(5),\nTRC must take additional measures on the pipeline such as investigating its pipe\ncharacteristics or reducing the pipeline MOP, until the pipeline MOP is able to be\nconfirmed via a substantiative record.\nThe Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a\nwritten request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an\nextension.\n\n\n\nPHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs\nassociated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is\nrequested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with\npreparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with\nreplacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.\nFailure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties\nnot to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for\neach day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a\ndistrict court of the United States.\nWARNING ITEMS\nWith respect to Items 1, 3, 6, and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Parts 194 and 195\nbut identified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:\n49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(viii) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow\nits response plan regarding response equipment testing;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to prepare and\nfollow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting\nnormal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations\nand emergencies;\n49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain a\nrecord of each inspection and test required by Subpart F of Part 195 for at least\ntwo years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer;\nand\n49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to implement\nand follow its integrity management program.\nTRC presented information in its Response disagreeing with certain allegations and showing that\nit had taken certain actions to address the cited items. Under § 190.205, PHMSA does not\nadjudicate warning items to determine whether a probable violation occurred. If OPS finds a\nviolation of any of these items in a subsequent inspection, Respondent may be subject to future\nenforcement 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. The written petition must be received no later than\n20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a\nstatement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a\n\n\n\npetition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the\norder, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon\nrequest, grants a stay.\nThe terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49\nC.F.R. § 190.5.\nMarch 22, 2023\n___________________________________ __________________________\nAlan K. Mayberry Date Issued\nAssociate Administrator\nfor Pipeline Safety\n\n12022028NOPV_Closure Letter_07132023_(21-199000)_text.pdf\n\nOVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY\nJuly 13, 2023\nMr. Thomas Nimbley\nChairman and Chief Executive Officer\nPBF Energy Inc.\n1 Sylvan Way, Second Floor\nParsippany, New Jersey 07054\nCPF 1-2022-028-NOPV\nDear Mr. Nimbley:\nOn March 22, 2023, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued\nto Toledo Refining Company LLC, a subsidiary of PBF Energy Inc., a Final Order in the above-\nreferenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the\ndocumentation you provided it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this\nOrder.\nAccordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the\nmatters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.\nSincerely,\nRobert Burrough\nDirector, Eastern Region\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","truncated":false,"body_characters":28246}