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 Sunnyside 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 $8,800 for emission violations. The per-unit penalty was based on 0.44 tons of excess VOC emissions. Sunnyside implemented business practices to prevent the sale of non-compliant products in California including adding labels to the product packaging that clearly identifies that the product is not to be sold in California. Sunnyside has also implemented new methods of consistently communicating sales restrictions to their customers. 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...
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 TJX 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 this case, the total penalty is $196,800 for 171 days of administrative and emission violations. The penalty, in this case, was reduced because TJX made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation and to comply, including developing new business practices to ensure future compliance. These business practices include modifying relevant purchasing practices, delivering staff training, and implementing a vendor certification program for the relevant vendor population. 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 TJX that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty, in this case, was also based ...
Penalty Determination. (28) 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 Agreement and the NOV and is also summarized below. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including any per unit or per day 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. Health and Safety Code sections 38580(b) and 43027(d) authorize a strict liability penalty of $25,000 per violation. LCFS section 95494(b) provides that each day that a required report remains unsubmitted, incomplete, or inaccurate constitutes a separate violation. Health & Safety Code section 43030(a) provides that each day during any portion of which a violation occurs is a separate offense. The violations in the case of NOV F10112018-BP-RPT resulted in a penalty of $1,000 for each day the quarterly reports remained inaccurate. The lower penalty rate reflects BP’s genuine efforts to comply, BP’s forthcoming cooperation with CARB’s investigation, the volume of fuel involved, and the violation’s overall impact on the program’s goals. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provisions applied in this case, including Health and Safety Code sections 38580(b), 43027(d) and 43030(a), are appropriate because BP or agents thereof submitted inaccurate quarterly fuel transactions reports in violation of LCFS section 95494(b). 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. Health and Safety Code section 38580(b)(2) specifies that violations of any regulation under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 shall be deemed to result in an emission of an air contaminant for purposes of the governing penalty statues.
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. 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 F040919-SHR-RVP 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 six days resulting in thirteen violations. The penalty obtained in this case is $15,000.00 per violation. The lower penalty reflects the consideration of a number of facts, including that this appeared to be an unintentional violation, that XXXX’s discovery of the exceedance of the RVP were due to a self-disclosed incident at the Xxxxxxxx refinery, and that Shell cooperated with XXXX’s 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 Shell allegedly sold, offered for sale, supplied, or offered for supply or transported CARBOB in California in violation of CCR, title13, §§ 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. (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 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 penalty in the case of NOV F042717-TSOT-RVP 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 six days from one tank, resulting in seven violations under CaRFG regulation sections 2262.4 and 2268. The penalty obtained in this case is $19,000.00 per violation. The lower penalty reflects the consideration of a number of facts, including: that this was an unintentional 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 and/or transported CARBOB in California in violation of California Code of Regulations, title 13, sections 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. (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. Below is the basis for the assessed penalties (Health & Saf. Code § 39619.7.) The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit basis for the penalty. The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the eight statutory factors, (Health & Saf. Code § 42403, 43024), The per-unit penalty in this case is a maximum of $500 per unit per strict liability violation. The penalty obtained in this case is $2 per unit for 784 SUBJECT UNITS. The penalty in this matter reflects the fact that this was a first time violation for TPG under TPG’s new ownership; TPG’s good faith and expeditious efforts to correct the alleged violations; and TPG’s cooperation with the investigation. 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 negotiation, and CARB's assessment of the relative strength of its case against TPG, and the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation. 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 provision being applied in this case is Health and Safety Code section 43016, because TPG sold, and/or offered for sale, and/or advertised portable fuel containers that violated the standards required for certification Portable Fuel Containers and Spill-Proof Spouts Regulation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 2467.5(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 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 time of use, is not available. However, since the portable fuel containers did not meet the applicable certification standards 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. 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 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 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. 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.
