Opinion ID: 1755361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The power of the administrative agency

Text: ¶ 20. The third factor to be considered is whether the administrative agency has the power to make the decision which is being challenged. The Commission is authorized under Miss.Code Ann. §§ 49-17-1 through 49-17-43 to impose a penalty of up to $25,000 for each violation of a statute or regulation. Based upon the violations committed by Titan and following an evidentiary hearing by the Commission, the Commission possessed substantial evidence to impose a moderate penalty of $5,000 for the violations. ¶ 21. Miss.Code Ann. § 49-17-43 also provides factors for the Commission to consider when determining whether a company should be fined. The Commission's order addresses each applicable factor and provides a statement of the Commission's findings. ¶ 22. Titan argues that the methodology used to determine the permit's concentration limits was flawed. Titan offered evidence that the Environmental Protection Agency allows for companies to use mass limits. On being questioned by Commissioner Billy Van Devender, Titan's expert witness Dr. Gazi George testified that had the limits been properly done, represented by mass balance, we would not be anywhere close to those limits [concentration limits contained in the NPDES permit]. Although Titan offered evidence in support of mass limits, Titan's permit was based on concentration limits and the permit was violated. In addition, the EPA allows for both limits to be used. ¶ 23. This Court give[s] great deference to the administrative agency in interpreting its own regulations. Weems, 653 So.2d at 273. Based on the expertise of MDEQ, this Court defers to MDEQ's decision regarding the methodology limits the agency implements. The Commission's order was within its power when determining whether the permit was fatally flawed under the methodology implemented.