§ 2308(a), and a five percent penalty per month (not to exceed twenty-five percent), pursuant to 58 Pa. C.S. § 2308(b). SBI contends that the conclusions are at odds ALJ’s with our determination regarding sanctions in the SBI Exc. at 12. Rulemaking Order. SBI cites to the following excerpt in the as indicative of Rulemaking Order our intention to treat the interest and penalty provision of Section 2308 of Act 13 as discretionary: Based on the foregoing, the Commission assess interest may and penalties on untimely or delinquent impact fee payments by Sections 2307-2313 of the Act if (1) the as permitted producer fails to pay the delinquent impact fee in full in compliance with the Notice of Amount Due, (2) the producer fails to file a timely response with the Commission if no payment is made, or (3) after hearing, the Commission sustains the amount due by a final order. 58 Pa. C.S. §§ 2307-2313. SBI Exc. at 13 (emphasis added) (quoting at 18). Additionally, SBI Rulemaking Order cites to proposed Section 131.6(b)(2) of the Regulations, 52 Pa. Code 131.6(b)(2), set forth in Appendix A of the in support of its argument that sanctions Rulemaking Order are not mandatory. SBI Exc. at 13. SBI argues that in some circumstances the term has been interpreted “shall” to be discretionary. at 13-14 (citing 496 A.2d 16, 19-20 (Pa. Super. Ct. Id. Tyler v. King, 1985), and 552 A.2d 1075, 1079 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)). Additionally, Com. v. Ferguson, the Respondent contends that the failure to treat the sanctions provisions as discretionary would raise serious constitutional issues. According to SBI, mandatory interest and penalty provisions would violate its constitutional rights to appeal a governmental action and to due process of law. SBI Exc. at 14. SBI argues that it has a constitutional right to challenge claim I&E’s pertaining to the additional impact fees owed. However, SBI asserts that the General
§ 2308(a), and a five percent penalty per month (not to exceed twenty-five percent), pursuant to 58 Pa. C.S. § 2308(b). SBI contends that the ALJ’s conclusions are at odds with our determination regarding sanctions in the Rulemaking Order. SBI Exc. at 12. SBI cites to the following excerpt in the Rulemaking Order as indicative of our intention to treat the interest and penalty provision of Section 2308 of Act 13 as discretionary: Based on the foregoing, the Commission may assess interest and penalties on untimely or delinquent impact fee payments as permitted by Sections 2307-2313 of the Act if (1) the producer fails to pay the delinquent impact fee in full in compliance with the Notice of Amount Due, (2) the producer fails to file a timely response with the Commission if no payment is made, or (3) after hearing, the Commission sustains the amount due by a final order. 58 Pa. C.S. §§ 2307-2313. SBI Exc. at 13 (emphasis added) (quoting Rulemaking Order at 18). Additionally, SBI cites to proposed Section 131.6(b)(2) of the Regulations, 52 Pa. Code 131.6(b)(2), set forth in Appendix A of the Rulemaking Order in support of its argument that sanctions are not mandatory. SBI Exc. at 13. SBI argues that in some circumstances the term “shall” has been interpreted to be discretionary. Id. at 13-14 (citing Tyler v. King, 496 A.2d 16, 19-20 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985), and Com. v. Ferguson, 552 A.2d 1075, 1079 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)). Additionally, the Respondent contends that the failure to treat the sanctions provisions as discretionary would raise serious constitutional issues. According to SBI, mandatory interest and penalty provisions would violate its constitutional rights to appeal a governmental action and to due process of law. SBI Exc. at 14. SBI argues that it has a constitutional right to challenge I&E’s claim pertaining to the additional impact fees owed. However, SBI asserts that the General