Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25855

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6012–4]

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Audit Policy

Customer Satisfaction Survey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this document announces

that EPA is planning to submit the

following proposed Information

Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB):

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Audit Policy

Customer Satisfaction Survey, EPA ICR

Number 1859.01. Before submitting the

ICR to OMB for review and approval,

EPA is soliciting comments on specific

aspects of the proposed information

collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: U.S. E.P.A., Office of

Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, 401 M Street, SW. (2201A),

Audit Policy Survey, Washington, DC

20460. Interested parties may obtain a

copy of the ICR by contacting the Audit

Policy Docket, 202–564–2614.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Riedel, 202–564–4187 phone,

202–501-0701 fax.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Affected entities: Entities potentially

affected by this action are those which

submitted disclosures under EPA’s

‘‘Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery,

Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of

Violations’’ Policy (60 FR 66806,

December 22, 1995 (Audit Policy)).

Title: Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request; Audit Policy

Customer Satisfaction Survey, EPA ICR

No. 1859.01.

Abstract: This information collection

is proposed to implement the public

commitment in EPA’s Audit Policy to

conduct a ‘‘study of the effectiveness of

the policy * * *’’ by January 1999. (60

FR 66706, 60 FR 66712, part H(1) on

Public Accountability). The proposed

information collection is the Customer

Satisfaction Survey set forth below.

EPA’s Audit Policy, effective in

January of 1996, encourages selfpolicing by eliminating gravity-based

penalties for federal environmental

violations that are voluntarily

discovered, disclosed, corrected and

prevented under the terms of the Policy.

Nor will EPA recommend criminal

prosecution of regulated entities in

these circumstances, although

individuals remain liable for their own

criminal conduct. The Policy includes

safeguards to protect the public and the

environment, such as excluding

violations that may result in serious

harm or risk, reflect repeated

noncompliance or allow a company to

realize an economic gain from its

noncompliance. The Audit Policy is on

the High Priority List of the President’s

Reinventing Environmental Regulations

program. At the time of this document,

approximately 273 regulated entities

have disclosed violations at over 922

facilities, and EPA has settled cases/

matters with 102 of these entities at 449

facilities. This ICR proposes to survey

the entities that have disclosed

violations under the Audit Policy.

The survey, set forth below, generally

consists of the ‘‘customer satisfaction’’

questions relating to the ‘‘effectiveness’’

of the Audit Policy in encouraging

voluntary discovery, disclosure,

correction and prevention of violations,

and questions on how the Audit Policy

and its application can be improved.

OECA will use this information to

evaluate and, where appropriate, revise

the Audit Policy to better serve its goals

in protecting health and the

environment. Participation by the

regulated entities in the brief survey is

voluntary and anonymous. EPA will not

possess the name of the respondent in

connection with any answers provided.

Any information claimed to be

Confidential Business Information will

be treated in accordance with EPA

regulations at 40 CFR part 2.

Generally, the Customer Satisfaction

Survey will assist EPA in addressing the

following issue areas cited in the Audit

Policy (60 FR 66712):

‘‘H. Public Accountability

(1) Within 3 years of the effective date

of this policy, EPA will complete a

study of the effectiveness of the policy

in encouraging:

(a) Changes in compliance behavior

within the regulated community,

including improved compliance rates;

(b) Prompt disclosure and correction

of violations, including timely and

accurate compliance with reporting

requirements;

(c) Corporate compliance programs

that are successful in preventing

violations, improving environmental

performance and promoting public

disclosure;

(d) Consistency among state programs

that provide incentives for voluntary

compliance.

EPA will make the study available to

the public.’’

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

The EPA would like to solicit

comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The total

estimated average burden is estimated to

be twenty to thirty minutes at a cost of

$29 to $43. Burden means the total time,

effort, or financial resources expended

by persons to generate, maintain, retain,

or disclose or provide information to or

for a Federal agency. This includes the

time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes

of collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information. It is estimated

that approximately 60% to 70% or 164

to 191 of the 273 entities will respond

to the survey request.
25856 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Nancy K. Stoner,

Director, Office of Planning and Policy

Analysis, Office of Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance.

Audit Policy Customer Satisfaction Survey

EPA invites you to participate in this

anonymous survey of companies that have

disclosed environmental violations under the

EPA Audit Policy. The Audit Policy, entitled

‘‘Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery,

Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of

Violations,’’ appeared in the Federal Register

on December 22, 1995 at 60 FR 66705. The

intent of the Audit Policy is to encourage

regulated entities to voluntarily discover,

disclose, correct and prevent violations of

federal environmental law. This survey will

help EPA serve you better and will help EPA

improve the Audit Policy. Average time to

fill out the survey is estimated to be 20 to 30

minutes. Please return the completed survey

in the enclosed envelope addressed to [a

third party contractor] by lll. EPA will

not possess the name of the respondent in

connection with any answers provided.

Please do not submit your name in the survey

responses. Your participation is very much

appreciated. Your response matters!

If you have not yet received final

determination under the Audit Policy, i.e.

signed order or EPA letter indicating closure

of case/matter, please answer Questions 1–5

only. If you disclosed more than one type of

violation, please generalize for all of your

experiences.

1. How did you learn of EPA’s Audit Policy?

lTrade association

lSeminar or conference

lFederal Register

lIn-house or outside counsel

lOther (please indicate)

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

2. Would you have disclosed the violation to

EPA in the absence of an Audit Policy?

lYes

lNo

lDon’t know

Please explain why or why not.

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

3. Did you have an environmental

compliance auditing program before you

heard of the Audit Policy?

lYes

lNo

lDon’t know

Please very briefly describe the scope and

frequency of your auditing activities before

you heard of the Audit Policy:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

4. In what ways, if any, did the Audit Policy

encourage improvements in the extent of

your auditing or due diligence activities?

lNumber of audits per facility

lNumber of facilities audited

lScope of environmental statutes or media

covered

lScope of processes covered

lNumber of people involved

lOther

lllllllllllllllllllll

lDid not encourage

5. In what ways, if any, did the Audit Policy

encourage improvements in the quality of

your auditing or due diligence activities?

lQualifications of people involved

l‘‘Thoroughness’’ of audit

lOther

lllllllllllllllllllll

lDid not encourage

6. How did you systematically discover the

violation(s) disclosed?

lEnvironmental audit

lNot applicable

lDue diligence efforts

lBoth

If you checked ‘‘Both,’’ and characterized

the discovery as through environmental

auditing in you disclosure letter, please

explain why:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

7. Why did you decide to disclose the

violation(s) under the Audit Policy?

Please check reason(s) and circle most

important reason

lTo take proactive measures to find and

address compliance problems

lTo limit liability

lTo avail yourself of the incentives under

the Policy-penalty mitigation and/or

non-recommendation of matter for

criminal prosecution

lTo obtain certainty by relying on

predictable enforcement response under

Audit Policy

lTo obtain assurance from EPA that

violation is being properly corrected /

damage is properly remediated

lTo conduct and publicize disclosures as

evidence of good corporate citizenry and

awareness of need to protect public

health and the environment

lOther

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lDon’t know

8. Hypothetically, if you had violations that

you did not disclose under Audit Policy, why

would you refrain from doing so?

Please check reason(s) and circle most

important reason

lUnable to meet 10-day written disclosure

condition

lUncertainty of enforcement response under

Audit Policy

lDefinition of ‘‘imminent and substantial

endangerment’’ is too vague

lBelief that penalty representing the

economic benefit gained from noncompliance will be too high

lBelief that agency is not likely to discover

the violation if it is corrected but not

disclosed

lTransactional costs of disclosing are too

high

lDesire to avoid disclosure to public of

violations

lOther reason

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lDon’t know

9. If you circled the ‘‘Uncertainty of

enforcement response’’ reason in the

previous question, please check the subreason(s) and circle the most important subreason:

lProcess for calculating economic benefit

component of penalty is not precise

enough

lDefinition of ‘‘repeat violations’’ is unclear

lUnclear whether entity would meet 10-day

disclosure condition

lUncertain whether the audit would meet

the standard for environmental audits

lUncertain whether compliance

management system would meet due

diligence standard

lOther reason

lllllllllllllllllllll

10. What relief did you receive under the

Audit Policy?

lAll penalties eliminated

lAll gravity-based penalties eliminated with

economic benefit penalty assessment

l75% of gravity-based penalties eliminated

with no economic benefit penalty

assessment

l75% of gravity-based penalties eliminated

with economic benefit penalty

assessment

lPenalties reduced under another authority

because the disclosure did not meet the

Audit Policy criteria

lPenalties not reduced because the

disclosure did not meet the criteria of

any authority

11. How do you view EPA’s response to your

company’s correction of the disclosed

violation?

lIt was reasonable

lIt was too stringent

Other llllllllllllllllll

Please explain llllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lDon’t know

12. How do you view EPA’s response to your

company’s efforts to prevent recurrence of

the disclosed violation?

lIt was reasonable

lIt was too stringent

Other llllllllllllllllll

Please explain llllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lDon’t know

13. Were you satisfied with the outcome of

your company’s self-disclosure?

lYes

lNo

lSomewhat

lDon’t know

Please explain llllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25857

14.What compliance or environmental

improvements, if any, were made possible by

the incentives offered under the Audit

Policy?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

15. What should EPA do to increase the

regulated community’s awareness of the

Audit Policy?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

16. How can EPA promote the regulated

community’s use of the Audit Policy?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

17. Would you use the Audit Policy again?

lYes, if applicable

lNo

lDon’t know

18. Would you recommend the Policy to

clients/counterparts?

lYes

lNo

lDon’t know

19. Would you like to see any changes made

to the terms of the Audit Policy?

lYes

lNo

lDon’t know

Please provide any suggested changes here.

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

20. What is your opinion about the amount

of time it took EPA to respond to your selfdisclosure?

lllllllllllllllllllll

21. What is your opinion about the amount

of time it took EPA to resolve your case?

lllllllllllllllllllll

22. Do you have any other comments or

suggestions about your experience with the

Audit Policy?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

23. Are you aware of EPA’s ‘‘Final Policy on

Compliance Incentives for Small

Businesses,’’ 61 FR 27984, June 3, 1996?

lYes

lNo

The Small Business Policy is intended to

promote environmental compliance among

businesses with 100 or fewer employees

through incentives to participate in

compliance assistance programs or conduct

environmental audits and to subsequently

correct any violations discovered.

24. Would you consider using the Small

Business Policy?

lYes

lNo

lNot applicable because have >100

employees

lDon’t know

Please explain why or why not.

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Thank you for your participation.

Customer Satisfaction Survey on EPA’s

Audit Policy

EPA invites you to participate in this

anonymous survey of companies that have

disclosed environmental violations under the

EPA Audit Policy. The Audit Policy, entitled

‘‘Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery,

Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of

Violations,’’ appeared in the Federal Register

on December 22, 1995 at 60 FR 66705. The

intent of the Audit Policy is to encourage

regulated entities to voluntarily discover,

disclose, correct and prevent violations of

federal environmental law. This survey will

help EPA serve you better and will help EPA

improve the Audit Policy. Average time to

fill out the survey is estimated to be 20 to 30

minutes. Please return the completed survey

in the enclosed envelope addressed to [a

third party contractor] by lll. Please do

not submit your name in the survey

responses. Your participation is very much

appreciated. Your response matters!

If you have not yet received final

determination under the Audit Policy, i.e.

signed order or EPA letter indicating closure

of case/matter, please answer Questions 1–5

only. If you disclosed more than one type of

violation, please generalize for all of your

experiences.

1. How did you learn of EPA’s Audit Policy?

l Trade association

lllFederal Register

ll Seminar or conference

llll In-house or outside counsel

lllll Other (please indicate)

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

2. Would you have disclosed the violation to

EPA in the absence of an Audit Policy?

l Yes

l No

l Don’t know

Please explain why or why not.

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

3. Did you have an environmental

compliance auditing program before you

heard of the Audit Policy?

lYes l No

l Don’t know

Please very briefly describe the scope and

frequency of your auditing activities before

you heard of the Audit Policy:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

4. In what ways, if any, did the Audit Policy

encourage improvements in the extent of

your auditing or due diligence activities?

lll Number of audits per facility

lll Number of facilities audited

lll Scope of environmental statutes or

media covered

lll Scope of processes covered

lll Number of people involved

lll Other

lllllllllllllllllllll

lll Did not encourage

5. In what ways, if any, did the Audit Policy

encourage improvements in the quality of

your auditing or due diligence activities?

lll Qualifications of people involved

lll ‘‘Thoroughness’’ of audit

lll Other

lllllllllllllllllllll

lll Did not encourage

(If you have not yet received final

determination under the Audit Policy, please

stop here.)

lllllllllllllllllllll

6. How did you systematically discover the

violation(s) disclosed?

lll Environmental audit

lll Due diligence efforts

lll Both

lll Not applicable

If you checked ‘‘Both,’’ and characterized

the discovery as through environmental

auditing in your disclosure letter, please

explain why:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

7. Why did you decide to disclose the

violation(s) under the Audit Policy?

Please check reason(s) and circle the most

important reason

lll To take proactive measures to find

and address compliance problems

lll To limit liability

lll To avail yourself of the incentives

under the Policy—penalty mitigation

and/or non-recommendation of matter

for criminal prosecution

lll To obtain certainty by relying on

predictable enforcement response under

Audit Policy

lll To obtain assurance from EPA that

violation is being properly corrected/

damage is properly remediated

lll To conduct and publicize disclosures

as evidence of good corporate citizenry

and awareness of need to protect public

health and the environment

lll Other

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lll Don’t know

8. Hypothetically, if you had violations that

you did not disclose under Audit Policy, why

would you refrain from doing so?

Please check reason(s) and circle the most

important reason

lUnable to meet 10-day written disclosure

condition

l Uncertainty of enforcement response

under Audit Policy

l Definition of ‘‘imminent and substantial

endangerment’’ is too vague

l Belief that penalty representing the

economic benefit gained from noncompliance will be too high

l Belief that agency is not likely to discover

the violation if it is corrected but not

disclosed

lll Transactional costs of disclosing are

too high
25858 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

lll Desire to avoid disclosure to public of

violations

lll Other reason

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lll Don’t know

9. If you circled the ‘‘Uncertainty of

enforcement response’’ reason in the

previous question, please check the subreason(s) and circle the most important subreason:

lll Process for calculating economic

benefit component of penalty is not

precise enough

lllDefinition of ‘‘repeat violations’’ is

unclear

lll Unclear whether entity would meet

10-day disclosure condition

lll Uncertain whether the audit would

meet the standard for environmental

audits

lll Uncertain whether compliance

management system would meet due

diligence standard

lllOther reason

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

10. What relief did you receive under the

Audit Policy?

lllAll penalties eliminated

lll All gravity-based penalties eliminated

with economic benefit penalty

assessment

lll 75% of gravity-based penalties

eliminated with no economic benefit

penalty assessment

lll 75% of gravity-based penalties

eliminated with economic benefit

penalty assessment

lll Penalties reduced under another

authority because the disclosure did not

meet the Audit Policy criteria

lll Penalties not reduced because the

disclosure did not meet the criteria of

any authority

11. How do you view EPA’s response to your

company’s correction of the disclosed

violation?

lll It was reasonable

lll It was too stringent

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Please explain above or other response:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lll Don’t know

12. How do you view EPA’s response to your

company’s efforts to prevent recurrence of

the disclosed violation?

lll It was reasonable

lll It was too stringent

Please explain above or other response:

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lll Don’t know

13. Were you satisfied with the outcome of

your company’s self-disclosure?

lll Yes

lll No

lll Somewhat

lll Don’t know

Please explain: lllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

14. What compliance or environmental

improvements, if any, were made possible by

the incentives offered under the Audit

Policy?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

15. What, if anything, should EPA do to

increase the regulated community’s

awareness of the Audit Policy?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

16. How can EPA promote the regulated

community’s use of the Audit Policy?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

17. Would you use the Audit Policy again?

lll Yes, if applicable

lll No

lll Don’t know

18. Would you recommend the Policy to

clients/counterparts?

lll Yes

lll No

lll Don’t know

19. Would you like to see any changes made

to the terms of the Audit Policy?

lll Yes

lll No

lll Don’t know

Please provide any suggested changes here.

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

20. Do you have any other comments or

suggestions about your experience with the

Audit Policy?

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

21. Are you aware of EPA’s ‘‘Final Policy on

Compliance Incentives for Small

Businesses,’’ 61 FR 27984, June 3, 1996?

lll Yes

lll No

The Small Business Policy is intended to

promote environmental compliance among

businesses with 100 or fewer employees

through incentives to participate in

compliance assistance programs or conduct

environmental audits and to subsequently

correct any violations discovered.

22. Would you consider using the Small

Business Policy?

lll Yes

lll No

lll Not applicable because have >100

employees lll Don’t know

Please explain why or why not.

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Thank you for your participation.

[FR Doc. 98–12428 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, May 19, 1998

at 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

PLACE: Conference Room on the Ninth

Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 1801

‘‘L’’ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20507.

STATUS: Part of the meeting will be open

to the public and part of the meeting

will be closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Open Session

1. Announcement of Notation Votes,

and

2. Mid-year Operational Reports by

the Office of General Counsel and Office

of Field Programs.

Closed Session

Litigation Authorization: General

Counsel Recommendations

Note: Any matter not discussed or

concluded may be carried over to a later

meeting. (In addition to publishing notices

on EEOC Commission meetings in the

Federal Register, the Commission also

provides a recorded announcement a full

week in advance on future Commission

sessions.) Please telephone (202) 663–7100

(voice) and (202) 663–4074 (TTD) at any time

for information on these meetings. Contact

Person for More Information: Frances M.

Hart, Executive Officer on (202) 663–4070.

Dated: May 6, 1998.

This Notice Issued May 6, 1998.

Frances M. Hart,

Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 98–12548 Filed 5–7–98; 11:19 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–06–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

May 1, 1998.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing