Common use of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Clause in Contracts

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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. 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 alleged 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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. 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 of which may apply to each specific issue: a. GM voluntarily disclosed the alleged violations herein to CARB; b. GM came into compliance quickly and fully cooperated with the investigation; c. GM provided information on whether the alleged violations affected emissions and maintains that there were no excess emissions from the engines in question; and d. GM’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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. 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) Komatsu voluntarily disclosed the alleged violation herein to CARB within 21 days of its discovery; (b) Komatsu came into compliance quickly by expeditiously replacing all of the allegedly noncompliant forklifts in California with CARB certified forklifts, and fully cooperated with the investigation; (c) Komatsu has taken specific action to prevent recurrence of the allegations by updating its systems and providing employee training; and (d) Komatsu’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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. 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) FCA identified process changes and implemented the necessary improvements to prevent the occurrence of undisclosed AECDs in the future; (b) FCA is mitigating the environmental impact of the alleged violations by developing and agreeing to deploy the Approved Emissions Modification; (c) Based on vehicle testing performed by FCA, there is no impact on the durability of the emission control system for vehicles that receive the Approved Emissions Modification; and (d) FCA communicated with CARB on numerous occasions to promptly respond to questions, provide clarification, and present findings.

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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. 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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. 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 of which may apply to each specific issue: a) ▇▇▇▇ voluntarily disclosed the alleged violation herein to CARB pursuant to a comprehensive compliance audit – which was not directed by CARB – and did so within 21 days of its discovery; b) ▇▇▇▇ came into compliance quickly by expeditiously prohibiting the sale and shipping of noncompliant add-on or modified parts to California and fully cooperated with the investigation. c) Lane has taken specific action to prevent recurrence of the allegations by updating its internal processes and appointing an ECC to continue compliance; and, d) ▇▇▇▇’▇ 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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case. Mitigating factors in this matter include the following examples: (a) The alleged violations were first-time occurrences of its type; (b) Geotab issued firmware updates in a timely manner to resolve issues pertaining to their devices; (c) Geotab obtained Executive Orders for current and future telematics devices; (d) Geotab was cooperative during CARB’s investigation and provided timely responses and thorough explanations to all CARB inquiries.

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 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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. 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 of which may apply to each specific issue: a) DIVAC voluntarily disclosed the alleged violation herein to CARB within 21 days of its discovery; b) DBNA and ▇▇▇▇▇ worked expeditiously to remove and replace all the allegedly noncompliant forklifts in California with CARB-certified forklifts; c) DBNA and DIVAC fully cooperated with the investigation; d) DBNA and DIVAC have taken specific action to prevent the recurrence of the allegations by implementing procedures; and e) DIVAC’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. In this matter, there were a number of mitigating factors, including that this is the first time CARB has alleged a violation of the LCFS against Amp, that Amp is a low carbon fuel producer and not an obligated party under the LCFS, that Amp has fully cooperated in CARB’s investigation, and that Amp has surrendered all credits generated from the alleged violation described above. 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: a) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ identified the issue as a result of its own due diligence; b) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ voluntarily disclosed the issue to CARB; c) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ fully cooperated with ▇▇▇▇'s investigation; and d) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’ compliance history with CARB.