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. (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 F093019-SHLR-RPT is a maximum of $25,000 per day per strict liability violation. CARB alleges that Shell sold, supplied and transported four blends of uncertified fuel resulting in four violations. The penalty obtained in this case is $5,000.00 per violation. The lower penalty reflects the consideration of a number of facts, including that this appeared to be an unintentional violation, Shell did not have reporting violations prior to the discovery of these violations, and Shell’s cooperation with CARB’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 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. 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 43024 and 43403. The per-unit penalty in this case is a maximum of $10,000.00 per day for strict liability violation pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39674. The vessel Unison Medal operated on fuel within RCW that did not meet the sulfur limit for three days in violation of the regulation. The penalty obtained in this case is $7,500.00 per day for a total penalty of $22,500.00 USD after considering all factors specified in Health and Safety Code sections 43024 and 43024. In particular, the penalty reflects penalties obtained in other OGV violation cases as well as the fact that this was a first time violation, and that UMC 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 Health and Safety Code section 39674 because UMC failed to comply with ATCM adopted under Health and Safety Code 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. 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 sections 43024 and 43403. 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 YM Upward operated on fuel within RCW that did not meet the distillate fuel standard for two days in violation of the regulation. The penalty obtained in this case is $8,500.00 per day for a total penalty of $17,000.00 USD after considering all factors specified in H&SC sections 43024 and 43024. In particular, the penalty reflects penalties obtained in other OGV violation cases as well as the fact that YMT 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 YMT 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. 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. 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.
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 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) F072716-TLC-ADDT is a maximum of $35,000 per day per strict liability violation. CARB alleges that TLC under additized the gasoline for six days. CARB further alleges that TLC sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for supply, or transported over six days. The penalty obtained in this case is $1,500 per violation (12 counts). The lower penalty reflects the consideration of a number of facts, including: that this was an unintentional violation, this was TLC’s first violation, and TLC’s diligent efforts to comply and to cooperate with the investigation. The main factor resulting in the large percent reduction of the maximum per day strict liability violation was TLC’s immediate voluntary disclosure of the violation to CARB and the immediate action taken to mitigate the violation. The penalties in this case were set at a level sufficient to recover any economic benefit gained from noncompliance. 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 TLC allegedly sold, offered for sale, supplied, or offered for supply, or transported gasoline in California in violation of Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, §§ 2250–2273.5. Is the penaltybeing 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 because 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. 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 Nails Inc. 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 there are low VOC emissions and the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties based on at least three days of violations (the day the product was purchased by CARB, the day it was supplied to the retailer, and the day it was manufactured for sale). Administrative penalties are also obtained in some cases. In this case, the total penalty is $3800 for administrative and emission violations. The per-unit penalty was based on three days of excess VOC emissions and three days of an administrative violation. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and Nails Inc. made diligent efforts to comply and to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, Nails, Inc. has stop selling the product into California by blocking sales on their website as well as informing customers not to resell this product 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 ...
