Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including statutory factors as described in CARB’s Enforcement Policy. CARB considered whether the violator came into compliance quickly and cooperated with the investigation; the extent of harm to public health, safety and welfare; nature and persistence of the violation, including the magnitude of the excess emissions; compliance history; preventative efforts taken; innovative nature and the magnitude of the effort required to comply, and the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the available test methods; efforts to attain, or provide for, compliance prior to violation; action taken to mitigate the violation; financial burden to the violator; and voluntary disclosure. The penalties are set at levels sufficient to deter violations, to remove any economic benefit or unfair advantage from noncompliance, to obtain swift compliance, and the potential costs, risks, and uncertainty associated with litigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including statutory factors as described in CARB’s Enforcement Policy. CARB considered whether the violator came into compliance quickly and cooperated with the investigation; the extent of harm to public health, safety and welfare; nature and persistence of the violation, including the magnitude of the excess emissions; compliance history; preventative efforts taken; innovative nature and the magnitude of the effort required to comply, and the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the available test methods; efforts to attain, or provide for, compliance prior to violation; action taken to mitigate the violation; financial burden to the violator; and voluntary disclosure. Xxxxx came into compliance quickly, put into place policies and procedures to prevent similar issues in the future, and fully cooperated with the investigation. The penalties are set at levels sufficient to deter violations, to remove any economic benefit or unfair advantage from noncompliance, to obtain swift compliance, and the potential costs, risks, and uncertainty associated with litigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including statutory factors and CARB’s Enforcement Policy. CARB considered whether the violators came into compliance quickly and cooperated with the investigation; the extent of harm to public health, safety and welfare; the nature and persistence of the violation, including the magnitude of the excess emissions; the violators’ compliance histories; preventative efforts taken by the violators, including action taken to mitigate the violations; the innovative nature and magnitude of the effort required to comply, and the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the available test methods; efforts to attain, or provide for, compliance prior to violation; financial burden to the violators; and whether the violators voluntarily disclosed the violations. The penalties are set at levels sufficient to deter violations, to remove any economic benefit or unfair advantage from noncompliance, to obtain swift compliance, and in consideration of the potential costs, risks, and uncertainty associated with litigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger, depending on the unique circumstances of the case.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including statutory factors as described in CARB’s Enforcement Policy. CARB considered whether the violator came into compliance quickly and cooperated with the investigation; the extent of harm to public health, safety and welfare; nature and persistence of the violation, including the magnitude of the excess emissions; compliance history; preventative efforts taken; innovative nature and the magnitude of the effort required to comply, and the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the available test methods; efforts to attain, or provide for, compliance prior to violation; action taken to mitigate the violation; financial burden to the violator; and voluntary disclosure. The penalties are set at levels sufficient to deter violations, to remove any economic benefit or unfair advantage from noncompliance, to obtain swift compliance, and the potential costs, risks, and uncertainty associated with litigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case. Mitigating factors in this case include but are not limited to the following specific examples, one or more which may apply to each specific issue:
(a) Caterpillar came into compliance quickly by expeditiously submitting all of the allegedly non-compliant revised engine applications to CARB, and fully cooperated with the investigation;
(b) Caterpillar has taken specific action to prevent recurrence of the allegations by updating its review processes and providing employee training; and
(c) Caterpillar’s compliance history with CARB.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including statutory factors as described in CARB’s Enforcement Policy. CARB considered whether the violator came into compliance quickly and cooperated with the investigation; the extent of harm to public health, safety and welfare; nature and persistence of the violation, including the magnitude of the excess emissions; compliance history; preventative efforts taken; innovative nature and the magnitude of the effort required to comply, and the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the available test methods; efforts to attain, or provide for, compliance prior to violation; action taken to mitigate the violation; financial burden to the violator; and voluntary disclosure. The penalties are set at levels sufficient to deter violations, to remove any economic benefit or unfair advantage from noncompliance, to obtain swift compliance, and the potential costs, risks, and uncertainty associated with litigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case. Mitigating factors include the following specific examples:
a) PORSCHE thoroughly and timely self-disclosed all of the alleged violations included herein to CARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to “Incentives for Self-Policing; Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations, 65 Fed. Reg. 19,618 (Apr. 11, 2000) and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (“CAL/EPA”) “Recommended Guidance on Incentives for Voluntary Disclosure” (October 2003);
b) PORSCHE promptly and completely fixed all problems identified;
c) PORSCHE identified and initiated necessary process changes and implemented the required improvements and other measures to prevent undisclosed running changes and field fixes in the future;
d) Based on best engineering judgment, no impacts to evaporative emissions and durability are expected;
e) The ECU/TCU software combinations tested by PORSCHE showed results for criteria air pollutants that are considerably below the standard when tested under the applicable test conditions in drive mode, and In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) results are consistent with the certification values;
f) The ECU/TCU software combinations tested by PORSCHE showed only minor deviation in carbon dioxide (CO2) results over four model years;
g) PORSCHE promptly improved processes to ensure that no vehicle wil...
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. Aggravating factors are circumstances that increase the severity of the impact of the directive violation. Mitigating factors are circumstances that do not excuse or justify the conduct but decrease the severity of the impact of the directive violation.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. Pursuant to DR 515.1.4, the Board may consider the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the sanctions to be imposed.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. The division will consider aggravating and mitigating factors in determining penalties for both minor and major violations listed in this rule section. The factors are not necessarily listed in order of importance, and they shall be applied against each single count of the listed violation.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. In Mismas, the court ultimately found two aggravating factors of (a) dishonest or selfish motive and (b) the vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victim. It found four mitigating factors: (a) the absence of a prior disciplinary record, (b) his full and free disclosure to the board and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, (c) his good character and reputation, (d) his alcohol dependency. The parties have stipulated that respondent’s case involves two aggravating factors of (a) dishonest or selfish motive and (b) the vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victim. It also involves three mitigating factors: (a) the absence of a prior disciplinary record, (b) his full and free disclosure to the board and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and (c) his good character and reputation. Moreover, while respondent is not asking the board to find a mitigating mental health disorder under Gov.Bar.R. V(13)(C)(7), the parties have stipulated that respondent sought mental health treatment shortly before self-reporting his misconduct. Respondent was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depression, and, as part of his ongoing treatment, respondent has shown positive growth on awareness of and setting appropriate professional boundaries. While the parties agree that the same aggravating factors exist, they believe that respondent has less culpability for J.S.’s vulnerability because he did not have the same unfettered authority to hire, supervise, and fire J.S. as Mismas. Respondent did not act against
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors. The Executive Counsel considers that there are no aggravating or mitigating factors that have not already been considered as part of the assessment of the seriousness of the Misconduct and that make it necessary to adjust the sanctions determined to be appropriate.
