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 provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because Real Spirit sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured for sale in California uncertified indoor air cleaning devices in violation of the Regulation for Limiting Ozone Emissions from Indoor Air Cleaning Devices (17 CCR section 94800 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Regulation for Limiting Ozone Emissions from Indoor Air Cleaning Devices because the regulation was adopted under authority of H&SC section 41985, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. Penalties must be set at levels sufficient to discourage violations. CARB considered all relevant circumstances in determining penalties, including the eight factors specified in H&SC section 42403. Under H&SC section 42402, et seq. the penalties for strict liability violations of the Regulation for Limiting Ozone Emissions from Indoor Air Cleaning Devices are a maximum of $10,000 per day of violation, with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this involving unintentional first time violations that resulted in unquantifiable excess emissions of ozone, CARB sets penalties based on the retail sales of the non-compliant units. In addition, CARB has sought additional penalties for procedural violations for the failure to display the required consumer notification language via the company’s website and for failure to send copies of the regulation to their retailers and distributors. The penalty obtained in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and Real Spirit made diligent efforts to comply and to cooperate with the investigation. Real Spirit immediately ceased sales of the uncertified devices and began efforts to certify the devices for legal sale in California. 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...
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 provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because Niteo 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. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. 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 $160,000 for emission violations. The per-unit penalty was based on 13.32 tons of excess VOC emissions. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time alleged violation and Xxxxx made diligent efforts to comply and to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, Niteo modified their product to meet regulatory requirements for commerce in California. 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 alleged violations. The penalty reflects alleged 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 fi...
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. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including a per unit, per day, per violation, or per vehicle penalty. 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 F072618-TSOR-OLE is a maximum of $35,000 per day per strict liability violation. CARB alleges that the non-complying CARBOB was sold, supplied and transported over a time period of seven days. The penalty obtained in this case is $17,000.00 per day. The lower penalty reflects the consideration of a number of facts, including: that this was an unintentional violation, Tesoro did not have a similar olefin violation three years prior to the discovery of this violation, and Tesoro’s efforts to comply and to cooperate with the investigation. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. CARB alleges that the penalty provisions being applied in this case, Health and Safety Code sections 43027 and 43030, are appropriate because Tesoro 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. Is the penalty 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. CARB alleges that since the fuel did not meet California air pollution standards, any emissions attributable to them are illegal. However, it is not practicable to quantify these emissions because the information necessary to do so is not available.
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).
Penalty Determination. Below is the basis for the assessed penalties (Health & Saf. Code § 39619.7.), which is also provided throughout this AGREEMENTH&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 manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit basis for the penalty. The per unit penalty for SURECAN in this case is six dollars ($6.00) per unit for four thousand four hundred sixteen (4,416) SUBJECT UNITS. The penalties in this matter reflects the fact that SURECAN fully cooperated with the investigation, there were no emission impacts in excess of any applicable law or regulation, and the violation was corrected in a timely manner. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the eight statutory factors, (Health & Saf. Code § 42403), including 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 negotiation, and CARB's assessment of the relative strength of its case against SURECAN, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that SURECAN may have secured from its alleged actions. Penalties in other cases may be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case. 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 in this case are Health and Safety Code sections 43016, because SURECAN did not obtain CARB certification approval prior to selling, supplying, offering for sale, advertising, or manufacturing for sale in California. SURECAN violated California Code of Regulations, title 13, sections 2467(b) and 2467.2(a). 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 prohibit the emission of pollution at a specified level. However, it is not practicable to quantify the emissions attributable to the affected PFCs, because the information necessary to do...
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 provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because Aervoe Industries Incorporated 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. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. 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 $13,800 for administrative and emission violations. The per-unit penalty was based on .54 tons of excess VOC emissions and an administrative violation of $3,000. This was a strict liability first-time violation and Aervoe Industries Incorporated made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, Aervoe Industries Incorporated has stopped all non-compliant sales of the product in California and is modifying the product to be meet the Electronic Cleaner category standards. 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 c...
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: The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including a per unit or per vehicle penalty. 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 H&SC section 43024 (H&SC § 43024). The per unit penalty in this case is a maximum of $10,000.00 per day for strict liability violation pursuant to H&SC section 39674 (H&SC § 39674). The vessel Grand Quest operated on fuel within RCW that did not meet the distillate fuel standard for one day in violation of the regulation. The penalty obtained in this case is $8,000.00 per day for a total penalty of $8,000.00 USD after considering all factors specified in H&SC § 43024. In particular, the penalty reflects penalties obtained in other OGV violation cases. This penalty was calculated by considering all factors specified in Health and Safety Code sections 42403 and 43024, including the facts that CIS implemented additional steps to their fuel change procedures to ensure future compliance and cooperated completely with the investigation. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC § 39674 because CIS failed to comply with ATCM adopted under H&SC section 39600 et seq. Is the penalty 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. 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. Health and Safety Code section 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 in this case are Health and Safety Code sections 43008.6 and 43016, because ONYX sold, offered for sale, and/or advertised the Subject Parts which 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 $500.00 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 $37,500.00 per unit per violation. The penalty obtained in this case is $250.00 per unit for 1,124 Subject Parts. This reflects the fact that this was a first time alleged violation for ONYX; ONYX responded in good faith and expeditiously in its efforts to correct the alleged violations; and ONYX 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 non-exempted add-on or modified parts. However, since the aftermarket parts were not exempted for sale in California, emissions attributable to them are illegal and excess as well.
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. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including a per unit or per vehicle penalty. 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 penalties it seeks. This information is provided throughout this settlement agreement and summarized below. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including a per unit or per vehicle penalty. 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 $25,500.00 over an unspecified number of days of violation is for 59 noncompliant units. The per unit penalty in this case is $432.20 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 TTI came into compliance quickly, is a first time violator, and has cooperated with the investigation. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is Health and Safety Code section 39674 because TTI 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. Whether the 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 prohibit emissions above a specified level. However, since the hours of operation of the noncompliant units involved and their individual emission rates are not known, it is not practicable to quantify the excess emissions.
