EPA Region 5 Regional Counsel's decision to reduce the $110,000 penalty MMF had already agreed to pay to $85,000 was unjustified. Further, the Regional Counsel's basis for the reduction was not documented. Regional Counsel relied on information in an internal Office of Regional Counsel memorandum. He did not have current reliable financial information to justify the decision nor a complete understanding of the owner's prior relationship with the company. In addition, Regional Counsel believed that when the Administrative Law Judge terminated and closed the case on May 14, 2007, after an agreement between MMF and EPA had been reached, EPA could be left with no agreement. However, in its correspondence to MMF on May 17, 2007, the Region noted it would process the earlier agreement if the company turned down the Region's offer to settle for a reduced penalty amount. As a result of the Regional Counsel's actions, the government received $25,000 less than it could have. In addition, Region 5 may have sent a signal to other violators that they may have their civil penalties reduced regardless of the evidence supporting EPA's decision.