Penalty Determination. H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because Great American Beauty sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured for sale deodorant body spray consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties based on the excess emissions of VOCs. Administrative penalties are also obtained in some cases. In this case, the total penalty is $35,000 for the alleged administrative and emission violations. The per-unit penalty was based on 1.95 tons of excess VOC emissions, and an administrative penalty. The penalty, in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and Great American Beauty made diligent efforts to comply and to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, Great American Beauty immediately provided written notification to each customer that has previously purchased the products contained in this Agreement that these products are not legal to sell in California. Great American Beauty developed a compliance plan that was provided to CARB on or about June 19, 2019. Moving forward, as provided in the Compliance Plan, Great American Beauty is implementing new purchasing practices that address compliance with The California Consumer Products Regulations for future products. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The pen...
Penalty Determination. (1) Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39619.7, CARB must provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This information is provided throughout this settlement agreement and summarized below. Penalties must be set at levels sufficient to discourage violations. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the eight factors specified in Health and Safety Code sections 42403 and 43024.
Penalty Determination. (1) Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39619.7, CARB must provide information on the basis for the penalty it seeks. This information is provided throughout this settlement agreement and summarized below. Penalties must be set at levels sufficient to discourage violations. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the eight factors specified in Health and Safety Code section 43031, subdivision (b). The per unit penalty in the case of NOV F122118-KRNR-RPT is a maximum of $35,000 per day per strict liability violation. CARB alleges that eighteen uncertified blends of CARBOB were sold, supplied and transported resulting in eighteen violations. The penalty obtained in this case is $3,000.00 per violation. CARB discovered this violation, but CARB considered several other factors in Xxxx’x favor. The lower penalty reflects the consideration of a number of facts, including: this appears to have been an unintentional violation, Xxxx has a longstanding compliance history, and Xxxx made efforts to comply and to cooperate with the investigation. CARB alleges that the penalty provisions being applied in this case, Health and Safety Code sections 43027 and 43030, are appropriate because Xxxx allegedly sold, offered for sale, supplied, or offered for supply or transported CARBOB in California in violation of Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, §§ 2250–2273.5. The provisions cited above do not prohibit emissions above a specified level. CARB alleges that because the fuel did not meet California regulatory requirements, any emissions attributable to them are illegal. However, in this case, Xxxx later submitted documentation alleging that the blends passed the predictive model and therefore may have been found compliant if Xxxx had timely notified CARB.
(2) Xxxx acknowledges that CARB has complied with Health and Safety Code section 39619.7 in prosecuting or settling these cases. Specifically, CARB has considered all relevant facts, including those listed at Health and Safety Code section 43031, has explained the manner in which the penalty amount was calculated, has identified the provision of law under which the penalty is being assessed, and has considered and determined that this penalty is being assessed under a provision of law that does not prohibit the emission of pollutants at a specified level.
(3) Penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of each matter, considered together with the need...
Penalty Determination. H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because Empire sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured for sale consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where there are low VOC emissions and the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties based on at least three days of violations (the day the product was purchased by CARB, the day it was supplied to the retailer, and the day it was manufactured for sale). Administrative penalties are also obtained in some cases. In this case, the total penalty is $6,000 for administrative and emission violations. The per-unit penalty was based on six days of excess VOC emissions and an administrative violation. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and Empire made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, Empire no longer sells this product. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by Empire that is not...
Penalty Determination a. In order to determine the appropriate penalty for an Employee such as a disciplinary or adverse action, the Employer will consider the relevant factors as determined by governing law (for example, applying the factors articulated by the Merit Systems Protection Board in Xxxxxxx x. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981) to applicable adverse actions).
b. The Parties recognize that discipline may be progressive in nature, however the progressive sequence of discipline is not required. It is understood that some offenses may be cause for severe action, including removal, irrespective of whether previous disciplinary or adverse actions have been taken against the employee.
Penalty Determination. Below is the basis for the assessed penalties (Health & Saf. Code § 39619.
Penalty Determination. Health and Safety Code § 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This required information, which is provided throughout this Agreement, is summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provisions being applied is this case are Health and Safety Code sections 43008.6 and 43016, because COMOTO sold, offered for sale, and/or advertised the subject non-California certified aftermarket parts that were not exempted pursuant to Vehicle Code sections 27156 and 38391 and California Code of Regulations, title 13, sections 2220 et seq. and 2470 et seq. The penalty provisions of Health and Safety Code sections 43008.6 and 43016 apply to violations of the Aftermarket Parts Regulations because the Regulations were adopted under authority of Health and Safety Code section 43013, which is in Part 5 of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or vehicle basis for the penalty. The per unit penalty in this case for violations that occurred prior to January 1, 2017, is a maximum of $500 per unit per violation. The per unit penalty in this case for violations that occurred on or after January 1, 2017, is a maximum of $37,500 per unit per violation. The penalty obtained in this case is $250 per unit for 7,750 Subject Parts. This reflects the fact that this was a first time violation for COMOTO, and COMOTO fully cooperated with the investigation. Whether the penalty is being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The provisions cited above do not prohibit emissions above a specified level. It is not practicable to quantify these emissions, because the information necessary to do so, such as emission rates and time of use, is not available. There are no testing results available that would indicate how much emissions increased as a result of the use of the uncertified aftermarket parts. However, since the aftermarket parts were not certified for sale in California, emissions attributable to them are illegal and excess as well. In the interest of settlement and because of the time and expense involved, the parties elected not to do such testing.
Penalty Determination. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39619.7, CARB must provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This information is provided throughout this settlement agreement and summarized below: Penalties must be set at levels sufficient to discourage violations. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the eight factors specified in Health and Safety Code sections 43024 and 43403. The per-unit penalty in this case is a maximum of $10,000.00 per day for strict liability violation pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39674. The vessel Yantian Express operated on fuel within RCW that did not meet the distillate fuel standard for three days in violation of the regulation. The penalty obtained in this case is $7,500.00 per day, $750.00 per hour, for a total penalty of $24,750.00 USD after considering all factors specified in Health and Safety Code sections 43403 and 43024. Penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations, and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar case negotiations, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty also reflects penalties obtained in other OGV violation cases as well as the fact that this was a first time violation, and that HLS implemented additional steps to their fuel change procedures to ensure future compliance and cooperated completely with the investigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per unitbasis. The penalty provision being applied in this case is Health and Safety Code section 39674 because HLS failed to comply with ATCM adopted under Health and Safety Code section 39600 et seq. Since CARB has alleged that the fuel used did not meet regulatory requirements; all of the emissions from it were excess and illegal. Without information on engine usage and emission rates, however, quantifying these excess emissions is not practicable.
Penalty Determination. A. In order to determine the appropriate penalty for an Employee such as a disciplinary or adverse action, the Employer shall, subject to applicable law, rule, and regulation, consider the relevant factors as determined by governing law (for example, applying the factors articulated by the Merit Systems Protection Board in Xxxxxxx x. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981) to applicable adverse actions).
B. The Parties recognize that the use of progressive discipline is at management’s sole and exclusive discretion. It is understood, however, that progressive discipline need not follow any specific sequence of disciplinary actions and that some offenses may be cause for severe action, including removal, irrespective of whether previous disciplinary or adverse actions have been taken against the offending Employee.
Penalty Determination. (1) Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39619.7, CARB must provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This information is provided throughout this Settlement Agreement and is summarized below. Penalties must be set at levels sufficient to discourage violations. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the eight factors specified in Health and Safety Code sections 42403 and 43024. The per unit or per vehicle penalty in this case is a maximum of $10,000.00 per unit per day. The penalty of $35,200.00 over an unspecified number of days of violation is for 128 noncompliant units. The per unit penalty in this case is $275.00 per CHE violation. This penalty was calculated by considering all factors specified in Health and Safety Code sections 42403 and 43024, including the fact that LBCT came into compliance quickly, is a first time violator, and has cooperated with the investigation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is Health and Safety Code section 39674 because LBCT failed to comply with section 2479 of the CHE Regulation, which was adopted under the authority of Health and Safety Code section 39658, et seq. The provisions cited above do prohibit emissions above a specified level however, since the hours of operation of the noncompliant units involved and their individual emission rates are unknown, it is not practicable to quantify the excess emissions.
(2) LBCT acknowledges that CARB has complied with Health and Safety Code section 39619.7 in prosecuting or settling this case. Specifically, CARB has considered all relevant facts, including those listed at Health and Safety Code sections 42403 and 43024, has explained the manner in which the penalty amount was calculated (including a per unit or per vehicle penalty, if appropriate), has identified the provision of law under which the penalty is being assessed and has considered and determined that this penalty is being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollutants at a specified level.
(3) Penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar case negotiations, and the potential costs and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The pena...
