Opinion ID: 413378
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Petitions Seeking Reconsideration of a Penalty Assessment

Text: 146 EPA regulation 40 C.F.R. Sec. 66.23(b) (1981) authorizes a source owner or operator to petition the Administrator to accept a revised penalty calculation but states that [t]he decision to accept the interim calculation or to grant a hearing on this issue shall be solely within the discretion of the Administrator. The statute does not speak to attempts by a source to lighten its penalty load; nor is there evidence that Congress intended such a burdensome hearing requirement. Sources have a right to a hearing when their penalty is assessed or reassessed by EPA. The statute does not entitle them to a second chance. We hold, therefore, that EPA's regulation is reasonable and entirely proper in this instance. 147 Before turning to the other procedural issues involved, we note that petitioners have challenged EPA regulation 40 C.F.R. Sec. 66.4 (1981) which states that issues that could have been raised in this proceeding may not be raised in a petition filed in an individual section 120 proceeding. This regulation tracks the review provisions of section 307(b)(2) which states that: 148 [a]ction of the Administrator with respect to which review could have been obtained under [section 307(b)(1) ] shall not be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement. 149 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7607(b)(2) (Supp. IV 1980). To allow review of the legal requirements in an administrative proceeding under section 120 would allow a source to circumvent the sixty-day time limit for seeking judicial review of section 120 regulations. Sec. 307(b)(1). 20 There is no denial of due process here, as the petitioners are able to and have challenged the validity of the regulations in this proceeding. We hold that regulation 40 C.F.R. Sec. 66.4 (1981), which limits review to this proceeding, is neither arbitrary nor capricious and we therefore affirm it.