# TOLEDO REFINING COMPANY, LLC — Notice of Probable Violation

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

Official case documents:

12022028NOPV_Closure Letter_07132023_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_Closure%20Letter_07132023_(21-199000).pdf

12022028NOPV_Closure Letter_07132023_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_Closure%20Letter_07132023_(21-199000)_text.pdf

12022028NOPV_Final Order_03222023_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_Final%20Order_03222023_(21-199000).pdf

12022028NOPV_Final Order_03222023_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_Final%20Order_03222023_(21-199000)_text.pdf

12022028NOPV_PCO PCP_03312022_(21-199000).pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_PCO%20PCP_03312022_(21-199000).pdf

12022028NOPV_PCO PCP_03312022_(21-199000)_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/12022028NOPV/12022028NOPV_PCO%20PCP_03312022_(21-199000)_text.pdf

12022028NOPV_Final Order_03222023_(21-199000)_text.pdf

March 22, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: thomas.nimbley@pbfenergy.com
Mr. Thomas Nimbley
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
PBF Energy Inc.
1 Sylvan Way, Second Floor
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
Re: CPF No. 1-2022-028-NOPV
Dear Mr. Nimbley:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation, withdraws one allegation, assesses a reduced civil penalty of $65,900, and specifies
actions that need to be taken by Toledo Refining Company LLC, a subsidiary of PBF Energy
Inc., to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. The penalty payment terms are set forth in
the Final Order. When the civil penalty has been paid and the terms of the compliance order are
completed, as determined by the Director, Eastern Region, this enforcement action will be
closed. Service of the Final Order by e-mail is effective upon the date of transmission and
acknowledgement of receipt 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. Gregory Thomas, Senior Logistics and Compliance Coordinator, Toledo Refining
Company LLC, gregory.thomas@pbfenergy.com



Mr. Michael Gudgeon, Refinery Manager, Toledo Refining Company LLC,
michael.gudgeon@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 )
)
Toledo Refining Company LLC, ) CPF No. 1-2022-028-NOPV
a subsidiary of PBF Energy Inc., )
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
From August 9 through September 15, 2021, 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 Toledo
Refining Company LLC (TRC or Respondent) in Toledo, Ohio. TRC, a subsidiary of PBF
Energy Inc., operates the Toledo Refinery, including a pipeline that transports crude oil from the
main refinery to the marine terminal.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Eastern Region, OPS (Director), issued to Respondent,
by letter dated March 31, 2022, a Notice of Probable Violation, Proposed Civil Penalty, and
Proposed Compliance Order (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice
proposed finding that TRC committed four violations of 49 C.F.R. Part 195, proposed assessing
a civil penalty of $81,400 for the alleged violations, and proposed ordering Respondent to take
certain measures to correct the alleged violations. The Notice also included an additional four
warning items pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 190.205, which warned the operator to correct the
probable violations or face possible future enforcement action.
After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond, TRC responded to the Notice by
letter dated May 31, 2022 (Response). TRC contested several of the allegations, offered
additional information in response to the Notice, and requested that the proposed civil penalty be
reduced. Respondent did not request a hearing and therefore has waived its right to one.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. Part 195, as follows:
1 See Pipeline Safety Violation Report (Violation Report), at 1 (on file with PHMSA); see also PBF Energy Inc.
website, available at https://www.pbfenergy.com/refineries/ (last accessed March 13, 2023).



Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.61(a)(1), which states:
§ 195.61 National Pipeline Mapping System.
(a) Each operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline facility must provide
the following geospatial data to PHMSA for that facility:
(1) Geospatial data, attributes, metadata and transmittal letter
appropriate for use in the National Pipeline Mapping System. Acceptable
formats and additional information are specified in the NPMS Operator
Standards manual available at www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov or by contacting
the PHMSA Geographic Information Systems Manager at (202) 366-4595.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.61(a)(1) by failing to provide to
PHMSA geospatial data appropriate for use in the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS).
Specifically, the Notice alleged that TRC failed to provide accurate geospatial data of its pipeline
facilities when it reported an abandoned pipeline as active.
In its Response, TRC contested the allegation of violation. Specifically, TRC argued that the
pipeline was not abandoned, but was taken out-of-service and idled.2 As TRC acknowledged in
its Response, PHMSA regulations do not recognize an “idled” pipeline status.3 Pipelines are
active until they are abandoned. A pipeline is abandoned when it is “permanently removed from
service.”4
During the inspection, TRC personnel indicated to the PHMSA inspector that the pipeline was
believed to be formally abandoned in 2009 by the prior operator.5 In its Response, however,
TRC clarified that the prior operator actually considered the line as being “Out-of-Service, Long
Term” and not abandoned.6 Accordingly, TRC argued it was not improper to continue reporting
the pipeline as active.7 Going forward, TRC stated that it has now decided to permanently
abandon the pipeline and noted that it would document and report the abandonment according to
the applicable regulations.
2 Response, at 2.
3 See PHMSA Advisory Bulletin “Pipeline Safety: Clarification of Terms Relating to Pipeline Operational Status,”
81 FR 54512, Aug. 16, 2016 (explaining that “PHMSA regulations do not recognize an ‘idle’ status for hazardous
liquid or gas pipelines. The regulations consider pipelines to be either active and fully subject to all relevant parts of
the safety regulations or abandoned).
4 49 C.F.R. § 195.2. For a further discussion of pipeline status reporting for NPMS, See National Pipeline Mapping
System Standards for Pipeline, Liquified Natural Gas and Breakout Tank Operator Submissions, October 2017,
available at https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Operator Standards.pdf.
5 Notice, at 2 (“Toledo stated that the 6-inch 16-233 hazardous liquid dock line (Line 16-233), acquired by Toledo
in 2011, was believed to be formally abandoned and removed from service in 2009 by its prior operator”).
6 Response, at 2.
7 TRC further asserted that in 2016, PHMSA “modified their definitions” of active and abandoned. This assertion is
not accurate. In 2016, PHMSA issued an advisory bulletin reminding operators that idled pipelines were still active
and were required to comply with applicable safety regulations until they were abandoned. The advisory bulletin
did not change the meaning of active and abandoned.



Having considered the record, I find the prior operator’s treatment of the pipeline, which
included purging it of product, deploying a nitrogen blanket, and capping the ends, did not
constitute abandonment because the pipeline was only considered to be out-of-service. This
treatment could be reversed in order to allow the pipeline to be used in the future. Since there is
insufficient evidence to prove the pipeline had been permanently abandoned, I do not find
Respondent was incorrect in reporting the pipeline as active. Accordingly, after considering all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent did not violate 49 C.F.R. § 195.61(a)(1) as alleged in the
Notice. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby order that Item 2 be withdrawn.
Item 4: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c), which states:
§ 195.403 Emergency response training.
(a) . . .
(c) Each operator shall require and verify that its supervisors maintain a
thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency response procedures
established under 195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure
compliance.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c) by failing to require and
verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency
response procedures established under § 195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure
compliance. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, TRC failed to
provide any records demonstrating that it verified its supervisors maintained requisite knowledge
of its emergency response procedures for which they are responsible to ensure compliance.8
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.9 Accordingly, based upon a review of all
of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c) by failing to require and
verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge of that portion of the emergency
response procedures established under § 195.402 for which they are responsible to ensure
compliance.
Item 5: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a), which states:
§ 195.406 Maximum operating pressure.
(a) Except for surge pressures and other variations from normal
operations, no operator may operate a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds
any of the following:
(1) The internal design pressure of the pipe determined in accordance
with § 195.106. However, for steel pipe in pipelines being converted under
§ 195.5, if one or more factors of the design formula (§ 195.106) are
unknown, one of the following pressures is to be used as design pressure:
8 See Notice at 4 (stating that TRC’s “sign-in sheets” from training sessions failed to demonstrate what topics
supervisors were trained on).
9 Response, at 3.



(i) Eighty percent of the first test pressure that produces yield under
section N5.0 of appendix N of ASME/ANSI B31.8 (incorporated by
reference, see § 195.3), reduced by the appropriate factors in §§ 195.106 (a)
and (e); or
(ii) If the pipe is 12 3/4 inch (324 mm) or less outside diameter and
is not tested to yield under this paragraph, 200 p.s.i. (1379 kPa) gage.
(2) The design pressure of any other component of the pipeline.
(3) Eighty percent of the test pressure for any part of the pipeline which
has been pressure tested under subpart E of this part.
(4) Eighty percent of the factory test pressure or of the prototype test
pressure for any individually installed component which is excepted from
testing under § 195.305.
(5) For pipelines under §§ 195.302(b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) that have not been
pressure tested under subpart E of this part, 80 percent of the test pressure
or highest operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for 4 or
more continuous hours that can be demonstrated by recording charts or logs
made at the time the test or operations were conducted.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a) by operating a pipeline at a
pressure that exceeds the maximum operating pressure (MOP) of the pipeline. Specifically, the
Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, TRC could not provide records to
demonstrate that it had established the MOP in accordance with the requirements set forth in
§ 195.406(a).10
In its Response, TRC contested the allegation of violation, and explained that it previously
provided its MOP calculation in an email to PHMSA during the inspection.11 Although TRC
provided an MOP calculation to PHMSA, it failed to include certain details required by
§ 195.406(a). For example, the MOP calculation failed to confirm the lowest design pressures of
all components on the pipeline pursuant to § 195.406(a)(2) and lacked detail regarding the
applicability of the requirements of § 195.406(a)(4). Accordingly, after considering all of the
evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a) by operating a pipeline at a
pressure that exceeds the MOP of the pipeline.
Item 8: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3), which states:
§ 195.452 Integrity management.
(a) . . .
(i) What preventive and mitigative measures must an operator take to
protect the high consequence area?
(1) . . .
10 See Notice, at 5 (stating that “[n]one of the documents provided by [TRC] included details of an overall calculation
of the MOP on the pipeline considering all factors required by § 195.406(a). When PHMSA asked for additional
information regarding records related to calculation of the MOP on the pipeline, Toledo did not provide any additional
information. Toledo stated that the MOP was 701 psi but did not have a calculation to support that assertion”).
11 Response, at 4 and Attachment 8.



(3) Leak detection. An operator must have a means to detect leaks on its
pipeline system. An operator must evaluate the capability of its leak
detection means and modify, as necessary, to protect the high consequence
area. An operator's evaluation must, at least, consider, the following factors
- length and size of the pipeline, type of product carried, the pipeline's
proximity to the high consequence area, the swiftness of leak detection,
location of nearest response personnel, leak history, and risk assessment
results.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3) by failing to evaluate the
capability of its leak detection means and modify, as necessary, to protect the high consequence
area. Specifically, the Notice alleged that during the PHMSA inspection, TRC failed to provide
any records demonstrating that it conducted a leak detection analysis that considered, at a
minimum, all the factors set forth in § 195.452(i)(3).
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation.12 Accordingly, based upon a review of
all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3) by failing to
evaluate the capability of its leak detection means and modify, as necessary, to protect the high
consequence area.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.13
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 $81,400 for the violations cited above.
Item 4: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $19,300 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.403(c), for failing to require and verify that its supervisors maintain a thorough knowledge
of that portion of the emergency response procedures established under § 195.402 for which they
12 Response, at 5.
13 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See 49 C.F.R. § 190.223 for adjusted amounts.



are response to ensure compliance. In its Response, TRC requested a reduction in the civil
penalty because it believed the penalty was excessive, and it took action to correct the non-
compliance after the PHMSA inspection.
14 Addressing the noncompliance post-inspection,
however, does not entitle Respondent a civil penalty credit, as PHMSA has previously
determined in other cases.
15
Pipeline safety was minimally affected, which is appropriate reflected in the proposed civil
penalty amount. TRC failed to comply with an applicable requirement, and did not provide a
reasonable justification for its failure to do so. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a
civil penalty of $19,300 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.403(c).
Item 5: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $15,500 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.406(a), for operating a pipeline at a pressure that exceeds the MOP of the pipeline. In its
Response, TRC requested a reduction in the civil penalty because it believed the penalty was
excessive, and it took action to correct the non-compliance after the PHMSA inspection.16 In a
recommendation for final action submitted pursuant to § 190.209(b)(7), the Director
recommended withdrawing the penalty for this violation in consideration of the additional MOP
calculations that were provided that, while not fully compliant, demonstrated there was minimal
impact on pipeline safety. Based upon the foregoing, I hereby withdraw the proposed penalty for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.406(a).
Item 8: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $46,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.452(i)(3), for failing to evaluate the capability of its leak detection means and modify, as
necessary, to protect the high consequence area. In its Response, TRC requested a reduction in
the civil penalty because it believed the penalty was excessive, and it took action to correct the
non-compliance after the PHMSA inspection.17 As noted above, however, operators do not
receive a credit by taking action to correct the non-compliance after the PHMSA has already
identified the violation during an inspection. This violation occurred in a high consequence area,
14 Response, at 3 and 5.
15 See In the Matter of North Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Enbridge Inc., Respondent, Final Order,
CPF No. 3-2022-022-NOPV, 2022 WL 18033746 at *2 (Dec. 19, 2022) (“Next, while PHMSA appreciates
Respondent's swift corrective measures to comply with pipeline safety regulations, such actions taken after an
inspection are not a basis to reduce a civil penalty”) (Citing In the Matter of Oasis Midstream Partners LP, a General
Partner of Oasis Petroleum Inc., Final Order 3-2019-5020, 2020 WL 6870720 at 7 (August 19, 2020) (“While Oasis
is to be commended for improving its internal processes to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations,
such post-inspection activities do not warrant the withdrawal of, or a reduction in, a proposed civil penalty”)); In the
Matter of Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, a subsidiary of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, Respondent, Final
Order, CPF No. No. 1-2017-1002, 2018 WL 1365570 at *2 (Feb. 9, 2018) (“Respondent's post-inspection corrective
actions are duly noted, but do not constitute grounds to reduce the penalty because they were taken after PHMSA had
already identified the violation”); and Violation Report at 13 (providing for credits when “[a]fter the operator found
the non-compliance, the operator took documented action to address the cause of the non-compliance, and was in the
process of correcting the non-compliance before PHMSA learned of the violation” and “After the operator found the
non-compliance, the operator took documented action to address the cause of the non-compliance, and corrected the
non-compliance before PHMSA learned of the violation.”) (emphasis added).
16 Response, at 4 and 5.
17 Response, at 5.



and TRC failed to provide a reasonable justification for its noncompliance with an applicable
requirement. Based upon the foregoing, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $46,600 for
violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.452(i)(3).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $65,900.
Payment of the civil penalty must be made within 20 days after receipt of this Final Order.
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 civil penalty will result in accrual of interest at the current annual rate in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3717, 31 C.F.R. § 901.9 and 49 C.F.R. § 89.23. Pursuant to those
same authorities, a late penalty charge of six percent (6%) per annum will be charged if payment
is not made within 110 days of service. Furthermore, failure to pay the civil penalty may result
in referral of the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action in a district court of the
United States.
COMPLIANCE ORDER
The Notice proposed a compliance order with respect to Items 2 and 5 in the Notice for
violations of 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.61(a)(1), and 195.406(a), respectively. As discussed above, Item
2 has been withdrawn. Therefore, the compliance terms proposed in the Notice for that Item are
not included in this Order. Under 49 U.S.C. § 60118(a), each person who engages in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or who owns or operates a pipeline facility is required to
comply with the applicable safety standards established under chapter 601.
Pursuant to the authority of 49 U.S.C. § 60118(b) and 49 C.F.R. § 190.217, Respondent is
ordered to take the following actions to ensure compliance with the pipeline safety regulations
applicable to its operations:
1. With respect to the violation of § 195.406(a) (Item 5), Respondent must review the
entirety of its historical records and pipe characteristics and provide a written justification
which confirms the MOP of its pipeline is 701 psi in accordance with 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.406(a)(1)-(5) within 60 days of receipt of the Final Order. If TRC is unable to
confirm through records that this MOP is valid and complies with § 195.406(a)(1)-(5),
TRC must take additional measures on the pipeline such as investigating its pipe
characteristics or reducing the pipeline MOP, until the pipeline MOP is able to be
confirmed via a substantiative record.
The Director may grant an extension of time to comply with any of the required items upon a
written request timely submitted by the Respondent and demonstrating good cause for an
extension.



PHMSA requests that Respondent maintain documentation of the safety improvement costs
associated with fulfilling this Compliance Order and submit the total to the Director. It is
requested that these costs be reported in two categories: (1) total cost associated with
preparation/revision of plans, procedures, studies and analyses; and (2) total cost associated with
replacements, additions and other changes to pipeline infrastructure.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in the administrative assessment of civil penalties
not to exceed $200,000, as adjusted for inflation (see 49 C.F.R. § 190.223), for each violation for
each day the violation continues or in referral to the Attorney General for appropriate relief in a
district court of the United States.
WARNING ITEMS
With respect to Items 1, 3, 6, and 7, the Notice alleged probable violations of Parts 194 and 195
but identified them as warning items pursuant to § 190.205. The warnings were for:
49 C.F.R. § 194.107(c)(1)(viii) (Item 1) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to follow
its response plan regarding response equipment testing;
49 C.F.R. § 195.402(a) (Item 3) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to prepare and
follow for each pipeline system a manual of written procedures for conducting
normal operations and maintenance activities and handling abnormal operations
and emergencies;
49 C.F.R. § 195.404(c)(3) (Item 6) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to maintain a
record of each inspection and test required by Subpart F of Part 195 for at least
two years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer;
and
49 C.F.R. § 195.452(b)(5) (Item 7) ─ Respondent’s alleged failure to implement
and follow its integrity management program.
TRC presented information in its Response disagreeing with certain allegations and showing that
it had taken certain actions to address the cited items. Under § 190.205, PHMSA does not
adjudicate warning items to determine whether a probable violation occurred. If OPS finds a
violation of any of these items 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. The written petition must be received no later than
20 days after receipt of the Final Order by Respondent. Any petition submitted must contain a
statement of the issue(s) and meet all other requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 190.243. The filing of a



petition automatically stays the payment of any civil penalty assessed. The other terms of the
order, including corrective action, remain in effect unless the Associate Administrator, upon
request, grants a stay.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
March 22, 2023
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety

12022028NOPV_Closure Letter_07132023_(21-199000)_text.pdf

OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY
July 13, 2023
Mr. Thomas Nimbley
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
PBF Energy Inc.
1 Sylvan Way, Second Floor
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
CPF 1-2022-028-NOPV
Dear Mr. Nimbley:
On March 22, 2023, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued
to Toledo Refining Company LLC, a subsidiary of PBF Energy Inc., a Final Order in the above-
referenced case. This Order included a Compliance Order. Based on our review of the
documentation you provided it has been determined that you have complied with the terms of this
Order.
Accordingly, this case is now closed and no further action is contemplated with respect to the
matters involved in this case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Burrough
Director, Eastern Region
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 28246