Common use of Penalty Determination Clause in Contracts

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. The per unit or per vehicle penalty in this case is a maximum of $10,000.00 per unit per day. The penalty of $18,375.00 over an unspecified number of days of violation is for 46 noncompliant units. The per unit penalty in this case is $399.46 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 APM 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 APM 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 not known, it is not practicable to quantify the excess emissions. (2) CARB 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 explained 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 penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. The penalty also reflects CARB's assessment of the relative strength of its case against APM, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden, and expense of litigation, to obtain swift compliance with the law, and to remove any unfair advantage that APM may have secured from its actions. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per unit basis. (4) The penalty in this case was based in part on confidential business information provided by APM that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and APM that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business.

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 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 $18,375.00 35,200.00 over an unspecified number of days of violation is for 46 128 noncompliant units. The per unit penalty in this case is $399.46 275.00 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 APM 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 APM 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. Howeverlevel however, since the hours of operation of the noncompliant units involved and their individual emission rates are not knownunknown, 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 explained 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 penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. The penalty also reflects CARB's assessment of the relative strength of its case against APMLBCT, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden, and expense of litigation, to obtain swift compliance with the law, and to remove any unfair advantage that APM LBCT may have secured from its actions. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per unit basis. (4) The penalty in this case was based in part on confidential business information provided by APM LBCT that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and APM LBCT that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business.

Penalty Determination. Below is the basis for the assessed penalties (1) Pursuant Health & Saf. Code § 39619.7.), which is also provided throughout this AGREEMENTH&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to Health and Safety Code section 39619.7, CARB must provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This information AGREEMENT includes this information, which is provided throughout 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 settlement agreement 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 summarized below. Penalties must be set at levels sufficient to discourage violationsthe violation was corrected in a timely manner. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the eight factors specified in statutory factors, (Health and Safety & Saf. 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 $18,375.00 over an unspecified number of days of violation is for 46 noncompliant units. The per unit penalty in this case is $399.46 per CHE violation. This penalty was calculated by considering all factors specified in Health and Safety Code sections 42403 and 43024§ 42403), including the fact that APM 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 APM 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 not known, it is not practicable to quantify the excess emissions. (2) CARB 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 explained 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 negotiationsnegotiation, and the potential costs and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. The penalty also reflects CARB's assessment of the relative strength of its case against APMSURECAN, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden, burden and expense of litigation, to obtain swift compliance with the law, law and to remove any unfair advantage that APM SURECAN may have secured from its alleged actions. Penalties in future other cases might may be smaller or larger depending on a per unit basis. (4) 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 was based 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 part on confidential business information provided by APM 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 retained by CARB in practicable to quantify the ordinary course emissions attributable to the affected PFCs, because the information necessary to do so, such as emission rates and time of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and APM that CARB does use, is not retain in the ordinary course of businessavailable.

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. The per unit or per vehicle penalty in this case is a maximum of $10,000.00 per unit per day. The penalty of $18,375.00 25,500.00 over an unspecified number of days of violation is for 46 59 noncompliant units. The per unit penalty in this case is $399.46 432.20 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 APM TTI 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 APM 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. 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. (2) TTI 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 explained 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 penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. The penalty also reflects CARB's assessment of the relative strength of its case against APMTTI, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden, and expense of litigation, to obtain swift compliance with the law, and to remove any unfair advantage that APM TTI may have secured from its actions. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per unit basis. (4) The penalty in this case was based in part on confidential business information provided by APM TTI that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and APM TTI that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business.

Penalty Determination. (1) Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39619.7, CARB must provide information on Below is the basis for the assessed penalties it seeks(Health & Saf. This information Code § 39619.7.), which is also provided throughout this settlement agreement AGREEMENT. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and summarized belowmitigating factors and per unit basis for the penalty. Penalties must be set at levels sufficient to discourage violationsThe per unit penalties for NAVISTAR in this case are twenty-five thousand dollars ($2,500.00) per unit for seven hundred ninety-nine (799) new production SUBJECT UNITS with the undocumented running change, and fifty dollars ($50.00) per unit for five hundred eighty-six (586) post-production field-fixed SUBJECT UNITS with the undocumented running change. The penalties in this matter reflect the fact that NAVISTAR 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 factors specified in statutory factors, (Health and Safety & Saf. 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 $18,375.00 over an unspecified number of days of violation is for 46 noncompliant units. The per unit penalty in this case is $399.46 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 APM 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 APM 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 not known, it is not practicable to quantify the excess emissions. (2) CARB has explained the manner in which the penalty amount was calculated (including a per unit or per vehicle penalty, if appropriate§ 42403), has identified the provision of law under which the penalty is being assessed and has explained 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 such as 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 negotiationsnegotiation, and the potential costs and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. The penalty also reflects CARB's assessment of the relative strength of its case against APMNAVISTAR, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden, burden and expense of litigation, to obtain swift compliance with the law, law and to remove any unfair advantage that APM NAVISTAR may have secured from its alleged actions. Penalties in future other cases might may be smaller or larger larger, depending on a per unit basis. (4) 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 43154 and/or 43212, because NAVISTAR modified SCR diagnostic calibrations on some of its heavy-duty diesel vehicles from their certified design through a running change on either production vehicles or vehicles in the field, and that running change was based in part on confidential business information provided not documented per CARB procedures and violated Health and Safety Code section 43106 by APM changing the vehicles from their originally-certified configuration without following CARB procedures. 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 retained by CARB in practicable to quantify the ordinary course emissions attributable to the affected heavy-duty diesel vehicles, because the information necessary to do so, such as emission rates and time of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and APM that CARB does use, is not retain in the ordinary course of businessavailable.