Notes on Reasonable Basis E Sample Clauses

Notes on Reasonable Basis E. This reasonable basis is subject to the same terms and limitations as CARB imposes with any such certification. The conduct must be legal in California under California law. However, in the case of an aftermarket part or component, the EPA will consider certification from CARB to be relevant even where the certification for that part or component is no longer in effect due solely to passage of time. In the Matter of: ) DOCKET NO. CAA-10-2020-0138 ) SNAKE RIVER PERFORMANCE INC. ) ) FINAL ORDER Rigby, Idaho ) ) Respondent. ) ) 1.1. The Administrator has delegated the authority to issue this Final Order to the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 10, who has redelegated this authority to the Regional Judicial Officer in EPA Region 10. 1.2. The terms of the foregoing Consent Agreement are ratified and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. Respondent is ordered to comply with the terms of settlement. 1.3. The Consent Agreement and this Final Order constitute a settlement by EPA of all claims for civil penalties under the CAA for the violations alleged in Part III of the Consent Agreement. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.31(a), nothing in this Final Order shall affect the right of EPA or the United States to pursue appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief or criminal sanctions for any violations of law. This Final Order does not waive, extinguish, or otherwise affect Respondent’s obligations to comply with all applicable provisions of the CAA and regulations promulgated or permits issued thereunder and any applicable implementation plan requirements. 1.4. This Final Order shall become effective upon filing with the Regional Hearing

Notes on Reasonable Basis E. This reasonable basis is subject to the same terms and limitations as CARB imposes with any such certification. The conduct must be legal in California under California law. However, in the case of an aftermarket part or component, the EPA will consider certification from CARB to be relevant even where the certification for that part or component is no longer in effect due solely to passage of time. PSI PROformance, Incorporated ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446 ) DOCKET NO.: CAA-03-2022-0057 ) ) ) EXPEDITED SETTLEMENT ) AGREEMENT ) ) 1. This Expedited Settlement Agreement (or “Agreement”) is entered into by the Director, Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (“Complainant”), and PSI PROformance, Incorporated (“Respondent”), pursuant to Section 205(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C § 7524(c)(1), and the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (“Consolidated Rules of Practice”), 40 C.F.R. Part 22 (with specific reference to 40 C.F.R. §§ 22.13(b), 22.18(b)(2), and (3)). The Administrator has delegated this authority to the Regional Administrator who, in turn, has delegated it to the Complainant. 2. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has jurisdiction over the above-captioned matter pursuant to Section 205(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C § 7524(c)(1), and 40 C.F.R. §§ 22.1(a)(2) and 22.4 of the Consolidated Rules of Practice. 3. At all times relevant to this Agreement, Respondent, a Pennsylvania limited liability company, was, and currently is, a “person” as defined under Section 302(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C § 7602(e), and the owner and operator of an automotive service and repair shop located at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (the “Facility”). 4. EPA alleges and finds that Respondent failed to comply with Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7522(a)(3)(B), and the implementing regulations found at 40 C.F.R. § 1068.101(b)(2). 5. As a result of EPA’s investigation and pursuant to its enforcement authority under Section 208(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §7542(b), EPA obtained evidence that between April 25, 2017, and December 19, 2020, Respondent sold seven (7) products, identified in Table 1, below, which render inoperative emission control systems on EPA-certified motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines (“defeat devices”)....

Notes on Reasonable Basis E. This reasonable basis is subject to the same terms and limitations as CARB imposes with any such certification. The conduct must be legal in California under California law. However, in the case of an aftermarket part or component, the EPA will consider certification from CARB to be relevant even where the certification for that part or component is no longer in effect due solely to passage of time. Complainant, the Director of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region III, and Respondent, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, have executed a document entitled “Consent Agreement,” which I hereby ratify as a Consent Agreement in accordance with the Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits (“Consolidated Rules of Practice”), 40 C.F.R. Part 22, (with specific reference to Sections 22.13(b) and 22.18(b)(2) and (3)). The terms of the foregoing Consent Agreement are accepted by the undersigned and incorporated herein as if set forth at length. Based upon the representations of the parties in the attached Consent Agreement, the penalty agreed to therein is based upon consideration of, inter alia, the statutory factors set forth in Section 205(c)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7524(c)(2), EPA’s January 16, 2009 Clean Air Act Mobile Source Civil Penalty Policy - Vehicle and Engine Certification Requirements policy, the appropriate Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 19 and the applicable EPA memoranda addressing EPA’s civil penalty policies to account for inflation, and Respondent’s current financial condition.