James L. Ryan

“ Again, the intent behind the regulation supports the EPA's interpretation as evidenced by the testimony of the draftsman who stated that the refinishing exemption applies only to the motor vehicle aftermarket. In addition, the EPA has consistently interpreted the refinishing exemption to apply only to the aftermarket as evidenced by a 1981 letter to Navistar indicating that the exemption was not applicable to Navistar's operations. "Ordinarily we defer to an agency's consistent interpretation of its own regulations unless 'plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations.'" Patton v. ”

“ Given Congress' intent to obtain compliance or require that facilities be shut down, regardless of feasibility, and given that due process concerns are satisfied by allowing infeasibility arguments at the penalty stage, we affirm the ALJ's decision to exclude evidence of technological and economic infeasibility at the liability hearing. ”

“ Violators of the emission limitations can be penalized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7420 which allows a penalty equal to the amount of economic benefit gained by delaying compliance with a SIP. "A brief but reasonably specific notice of noncompliance" must be sent to one not in compliance with a SIP. 42 U.S.C. § 7420 (b) (3) .
The particular regulation at issue here is contained within the Ohio SIP. Section 3745-21-09 (U) of the Ohio Administrative Code provides, in pertinent part:
(U) Surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. ”

“ When that is done in this case, the intent of the regulation and the goals of the Clean Air Act provide further support for the agency's interpretation.
The ALJ heard testimony from the draftsman of the relevant portion of the Ohio SIP. The draftsman, Mr. Juris, testified that "coating lines" was meant to include painting booths without ovens. [1] Furthermore, one of the fundamental purposes of the Clean Air Act is to maintain air quality standards by requiring emission reductions of organic compounds from major sources. ”

“ Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 94 L. Ed. 2d 434, 107 S.C.t. 1207 (1987) . Cardoza-Fonseca, however, is limited in its scope and does not justify de novo review of the regulations at issue in the instant case. ”