305, 309, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 1801, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). 7 . It appears that these extensions were motivated in part by the EPA's indecision as to how to deal with the problem of storm-water outlets. We do not know what has transpired on this issue since the beginning of the year. 8 . We surmise that the storm water collected in the drainage ditch is being diverted into the collection pool. 9 . A crucial distinction would seem to be that plaintiff in this case seeks penalties for past violations, while the Government has elected to forego past penalties in its action. There is a substantial question in our mind as to whether HudFish is entitled to past penalties in light of Gwaltney. But see Public Interest Research Group of N.J., Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 684 F.Supp. 115 (D.N.J.1988) (<HOLDING>). We may have cause to revisit this issue at
holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature holding gwaltney limited to jurisdictional question and does not prohibit recovery of past penalties in citizen suit if jurisdictional requirements met holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional