PURPOSE: This rule establishes the
procedures for assessment of administrative
penalties.
(1)
General Provisions.
(A) Pursuant to section
260.412, RSMo, and in addition
to any other remedy provided by law, upon determination by the department that
a provision of sections
260.350 to
260.481, RSMo or a standard,
limitation, order or rule promulgated, or a term or condition of any permit has
been violated, the director may issue an order assessing an administrative
penalty upon the violator. The amount of the administrative penalty will be
determined according to section (3) of this rule. In no event may the total
penalty assessed per day of violation exceed the statutory maximum specified in
section 260.425, RSMo.
(B) An administrative penalty shall not be
imposed until the department has sought to resolve the violations through
conference, conciliation and persuasion and shall not be imposed for minor
violations. If the violation is resolved through conference, conciliation and
persuasion, no administrative penalty shall be assessed unless the violation
has caused, or had the potential to cause, a risk to human health or to the
environment, or has caused or has potential to cause pollution, or was
knowingly committed, or is defined by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency as other than minor.
(C) An order assessing an administrative
penalty, shall be served upon the operator, owner or appropriate representative
through United States Postal Service certified mail, return receipt requested,
a private courier or messenger service which provides verification of delivery
or by hand delivery to the operator's or owner's residence or place of
business. An order assessing an administrative penalty shall be considered
served if verified receipt is made by the operator's or owner's appropriate
representative. A refusal to accept, or a rejection of certified mail, private
courier or messenger service delivery or by hand delivery of an order assessing
an administrative penalty constitutes service of the order.
(D) The program may, at any time, withdraw,
without prejudice, any administrative order.
(E) An order assessing an administrative
penalty shall describe the nature of the viola-tion(s), the amount of the
administrative penalty being assessed and the basis of the penalty
calculation.
(2)
Definitions.
(A) Definitions for key words
used in this rule may be found at 260.360, RSMo, and
10 CSR
25-3.260(2).
(B) Additional definitions specific to this
rule are as follows:
1. Conference,
conciliation and persuasion-A process of verbal or written communications,
consisting of meetings, reports, correspondence or telephone conferences
between authorized representatives of the department and the alleged violator.
The process shall, at minimum, consist of one (1) offer to meet with the
alleged violator tendered by the department. During any such meeting, the
department and the alleged violator shall negotiate in good faith to eliminate
the alleged violation and shall attempt to agree upon a plan to achieve
compliance;
2. Economic benefit-Any
monetary gain which accrues to a violator as a result of
noncompliance;
3. Gravity-based
assessment-The degree of seriousness of a violation taking into consideration
the risk to human health and the environment posed by the violation and
considering the extent of deviation from sections 260.350-260.481,
RSMo;
4. Minor violation-A
violation which possesses a small potential to harm the environment or human
health or cause pollution, was not knowingly committed, and is not defined by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as other than
minor;
5. Multiple violation
penalty-The sum of individual administrative penalties assessed when two (2) or
more violations are included in the same complaint or enforcement action;
and
6. Multi-day violation-A
violation which has occurred on or continued for two (2) or more consecutive or
nonconsecutive days.
(3) Determination of Penalties. The amount of
an administrative penalty will involve the application of a gravity-based
assessment under subsection (3)(A) and may involve additional factors for
multiple violations, (3)(B), multi-day violations, (3)(C), and economic benefit
resulting from noncompliance, (3)(D). The resulting administrative penalty may
be further adjusted as specified under (3)(E).
(A) Gravity-Based Assessment. The
gravity-based assessment is determined by evaluating the potential for harm
posed by the violation and the extent to which the violation deviates from the
requirements of the law.
1. Potential for
harm. The potential for harm posed by a violation is based on the risk to human
health or the environment or to the purposes of implementing the law and
associated rules or permits.
A. The risk of
exposure is dependent on both the likelihood that humans or the environment may
be exposed to contaminants and the degree of potential exposure. Penalties will
reflect the probability the violation either did result in or could have
resulted in a release of contaminants in the environment, and the harm which
either did occur or would have occurred if the release had in fact
occurred.
B. Violations which may
or may not pose a potential threat to human health or the environment, but
which have an adverse effect upon the purposes of or procedures for
implementing the law and associated rules or permits may be assessed a
penalty.
C. The potential for harm
shall be evaluated according to the following degrees of severity:
(I) Major. The violation poses or may pose a
substantial risk to human health or to the environment, or has or may have a
substantial adverse effect on the purposes of or procedures for implementing
the law and associated rules and/or permits;
(II) Moderate. The violation poses or may
pose a significant risk to human health or to the environment, or has or may
have a significant adverse effect on the purposes of or procedures for
implementing the law and associated rules and/or permits; and
(III) Minor. The violation does not pose
significant or substantial risk to human health or to the environment, was not
knowingly committed, and is not defined by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency as other than minor.
2. Extent of deviation. The extent of
deviation may range from slight to total disregard of the requirements of the
law, and associated rules and/or permits. The assessment will reflect this
range and will be evaluated according to the following degrees of severity:
A. Major. The violator has deviated
substantially from the requirements of the law, associated rules, or permits
resulting in substantial noncompliance;
B. Moderate. The violator has deviated
significantly from the requirements of the law, associated rules, or permits
resulting in significant noncompliance; and
C. Minor. The violator has deviated slightly
from the requirements of the law, associated rules, or permits that does not
result in substantial or significant noncompliance; most provisions were
implemented as intended; the violation was not knowingly committed; and is not
defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as other than
minor.
3. Gravity-based
penalty assessment matrix. The matrix that follows will be used to determine
the gravity-based assessment portion of the administrative penalty. Potential
for harm and extent of deviation form the axes of the matrix. The penalty range
selected may be adapted to the circumstances of a particular violation.
Gravity Based Penalty Assessment Matrix
|
Potential for Harm
|
Extent of
Deviation
|
|
Major
|
Moderate
|
Minor
|
|
Major
|
$8,000-$6,000
|
$6,000-$4,400
|
$4,400-$3,200
|
|
Moderate
|
$3,200-$2,000
|
$2,000-$1,200
|
$1,200-$600
|
|
Minor
|
$600-$200
|
$200-$40
|
$0
|
(B) Multiple Violation Penalty. Penalties for
multiple violations may be determined when a violation is independent of or
substantially different from any other violation. The director may order a
separate administrative penalty for that violation as set forth in this
rule.
(C) Multi-Day Penalty.
Penalties for multi-day violations may be determined when the director has
concluded that a violation(s) has continued or occurred for more than one (1)
day. Multi-day penalty assessments will be determined by using the Multi-Day
Penalty Assessment Matrix that follows. The director may seek penalties for
each day of noncompliance not to exceed the amount of the civil penalty
specified in section
260.425, RSMo.
Multi-Day Penalty Assessment Matrix
|
Potential for Harm
|
Extent of
Deviation
|
|
Major
|
Moderate
|
Minor
|
|
Major
|
$400-$200
|
$300-$150
|
$220-$110
|
|
Moderate
|
$160-$80
|
$100-$50
|
$60-$30
|
|
Minor
|
$40-$20
|
$20-$10
|
$0
|
(D)
Economic Benefit. Any economic benefits, including delayed and avoided costs
that have accrued to the violator as a result of noncompliance will be added to
the penalty amount. Determination will be made by the department using an
economic benefit formula that provides a reasonable estimate of the economic
benefit of noncompliance. Economic benefit may be excluded from the
administrative penalty if-
1. The economic
benefit is an insignificant amount;
2. There are compelling public concerns that
would not be served by taking a case to trial; or
3. It is unlikely that the department would
be able to recover the economic benefit in litigation based on the particular
case.
(E) Adjustments.
The department may add to or subtract from the total amount of the penalty
after consideration of the following adjustments:
1. Recalculation of penalty amount. After the
issuance of an order by the director, if new information about a violation
becomes available which indicates that the original penalty calculation may
have been incorrect, the department may recalculate the penalty in light of the
new information. No adjustments will be made once a settlement agreement has
been signed by all parties;
2. Good faith efforts to comply. The
department may adjust a penalty amount downward if good faith efforts have been
adequately documented by the violator. Good faith efforts include, but are not
limited to, documentation that the violator has reported noncompliance or
instituted measures to remedy the violation prior to detection by the
department. However, good faith efforts to achieve compliance after agency
detection are assumed and are not grounds for decreasing the penalty
amount;
3. Culpability. In cases of
heightened culpability which do not meet the standard of criminal activity, the
penalty may be increased at the department's discretion, within the limits of
the matrix. Likewise, in cases where there is a demonstrable absence of
culpability, the department may decrease the penalty. Lack of knowledge of the
law and any associated rule and/or permit shall not be a basis of decreased
culpability. The following criteria will be used to determine culpability:
A. How much control the violator had over the
events constituting the violation;
B. The foreseeability of the events
constituting the violation;
C.
Whether the violator took reasonable precautions against the events
constituting the violation;
D.
Whether the violator knew or should have known of the hazards associated with
the conduct; and
E. Whether the
violator knew or should have known of the legal requirement which was violated.
This criteria shall be used only to increase a penalty, not to decrease
it;
4. History of
noncompliance. Where there has been a history of noncompliance with the law or
any associated rule or permit, to a degree deemed significant due to frequency,
similarity or seriousness of past violations, and considering the violator's
response to previous enforcement actions, the department may increase the
administrative penalty. No downward adjustment is allowed because of this
factor;
5. Ability to pay. When a
violator has adequately documented that payment of all or a portion of the
administrative penalty will preclude the violator from achieving compliance or
from carrying out important remedial measures, the department may-
A. Waive any of the administrative penalty;
or
B. Negotiate a delayed payment
schedule, installment plan or penalty reductions with stipulated penalties;
and
6. Other adjustment
factors. This rule allows for other penalty adjustments based on fairness and
equity not mentioned in this rule which may arise on a case-by-case
basis.
(4)
Proceeds From Administrative Penalties. The proceeds from any administrative
penalty assessed in accordance with this rule shall be paid to the county
treasurer of the county in which the violation(s) occurred for the use and
benefit of the county schools.
(5)
Natural Resource Damages. Nothing in this rule shall be construed as satisfying
any claim by the state for natural resource damages.
Notes
10 CSR 25-14.010
AUTHORITY:
sections 260.370 and
260.437, RSMo Supp. 1998 and
260.412, RSMo 1994.* Original rule filed Jan. 3, 1992, effective Dec. 3, 1992.
Rescinded and readopted: Filed April 15, 1999, effective Nov. 30,
1999.
AUTHORITY: sections
260.370 and
260.437, RSMo Supp. 1998 and
260.412, RSMo 1994.* Original rule filed Jan. 3, 1992, effective
12/3/1992. Rescinded and
read-opted: Filed April 15, 1999, effective 11/30/1999. "Original authority: 260.370, RSMo
1977, amended 1980, 1988, 1993, 1995; 260.412, RSMo 1991, amended 1993; and
260.437, RSMo 1993, amended 1995.