Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16875

program development could be based

are available from Ms. Crystal Robinson,

Office of Environmental Engineering

and Technology Demonstration (8301),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.,

20460. Telephone (202) 260–4073.

The draft charge is three pages long.

Some background and the primary

issues from the charge follow.

(a) EPA (ORD) is formulating a

program to verify the cost and

performance of innovative

environmental technologies. The

purpose is to bolster the credibility of

deserving technologies to help them

enter the marketplace. Credible 3rd

party developed and EPA assured data

and information is expected to inform

the marketplace and the permitting

arena so that decision-makers can

choose innovative technologies with

more confidence.

(b) EPA is interested in the views and

advice of the Environmental

Engineering Committee in all aspects of

the program as planned currently.

(1) Is it practical to target each center

to be self-supporting in approximately 3

years? Can industry bear the expense?

(2) How important is it that the

verifications carry EPA’s ‘‘seal of

approval’’? Would verifications that

don’t carry EPA’s seal but just that of a

3rd party center have sufficient

credibility to open doors in the

marketplace and the permitting arena?

How important is EPA’s oversight in

ensuring consistency and rigor across

3rd party centers?

Any member of the public wishing

further information, such as a proposed

agenda should contact Mrs. Dorothy

Clark, Staff Secretary, Science Advisory

Board (1400F), U.S. EPA, Washington,

DC 20460, telephone (202) 260–6552 or

fax (202) 260–7118. Written comments

of any length (at least 35 copies) may be

provided up until the meeting. Members

of the public who wish to make a brief

oral presentation should contact the

Designated Federal Official, Mrs.

Kathleen Conway by phone (202) 260–

2558, or internet

CONWAY.KATHLEEN@epamail.epa.gov no

later than noon (eastern time)

Wednesday April 26 in order to have

time reserved on the agenda.

4. Cancellation of the Environmental

Economics Advisory Committee

Meeting

The meeting of the Environmental

Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)

of the Science Advisory Board which

was scheduled to meet on April 27,

1995 at the Holiday Inn Georgetown,

2101 Wisconsin Avenue NW,

Washington D.C. 20007, has been

cancelled. This meeting had been

announced in the Federal Register on

March 27, 1995. This meeting may be

rescheduled at a later date. For further

information, please contact Dr. Edward

Bender, Designated Federal Official,

Environmental Economics Advisory

Committee, by telephone at (202) 260–

2562, via Internet to

bender.edward@epamail.epa.gov, or by

facsimile to (202) 260–7118.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at

SAB Meetings

The Science Advisory Board expects

that public statements presented at its

meetings will not be repetitive of

previously submitted oral or written

statements. In general, each individual

or group making an oral presentation

will be limited to a total time of ten

minutes. Written comments (at least 35

copies) received in the SAB Staff Office

sufficiently prior to a meeting date, may

be mailed to the relevant SAB

committee or subcommittee prior to its

meeting; comments received too close to

the meeting date will normally be

provided to the committee at its

meeting. Written comments may be

provided to the relevant committee or

subcommittee up until the time of the

meeting.

Dated: March 28, 1995.

A. Robert Flaak,

Acting Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. 95–8086 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5184–4]

Voluntary Environmental Self-Policing

and Self-Disclosure Interim Policy

Statement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim policy statement and

request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces and requests

comment on an interim policy to

provide incentives for regulated entities

that conduct voluntary compliance

evaluations and also disclose and

correct violations. These incentives

include eliminating or substantially

reducing the gravity component of civil

penalties and not referring cases for

criminal prosecution where specified

conditions are met. The policy also

states that EPA will not request

voluntary audit reports to trigger

enforcement investigations. This interim

policy was developed in close

consultation with EPA’s regional offices

and the Department of Justice, and will

be applied uniformly by the Agency’s

enforcement programs.

DATES: This interim policy statement is

effective as interim guidance 15 days

after publication, in order to give the

Agency time to coordinate

implementation of the policy

throughout EPA Headquarters and the

Regions. EPA urges interested parties to

comment on this interim policy in

writing. Comments must be received by

EPA at the address below by June 2,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit three copies of

comments to the U.S. EPA Air Docket,

Mail Code 6102, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20460, attention:

Docket #C–94–01.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Additional documentation relating to

the development of this interim policy

is contained in the environmental

auditing public docket. Documents from

the docket may be requested by calling

(202) 260–7548, requesting an index to

docket #C–94–01, and faxing document

requests to (202) 260–4400. Hours of

operation are 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except legal

holidays. Additional contacts are Geoff

Garver or Brian Riedel, at (202) 564–

4187.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Introduction

One of the Environmental Protection

Agency’s most important

responsibilities is obtaining compliance

with federal laws that protect public

health and safeguard the environment.

That goal can be achieved only with the

voluntary cooperation of thousands of

businesses and other regulated entities

subject to these requirements. Today,

EPA is announcing incentives for those

who take responsibility for voluntarily

evaluating, disclosing and correcting

violations. These incentives, developed

after nine months of public meetings

and empirical analysis, are set forth in

detail below and take effect in 15 days.

At the same time, EPA expects to

continue a dialogue with stakeholders

and consider further refinements to this

interim policy. The incentives that EPA

is offering fall into three distinct

categories.

First, the Agency will completely

eliminate gravity-based (or ‘‘punitive’’)

penalties for companies or public

agencies that voluntarily identify,

disclose and correct violations

according to the conditions outlined in

this policy. EPA will also reduce

punitive penalties by up to 75% for
16876 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

companies that meet most, but not all,

of these conditions. Second, EPA will

not recommend to the Department of

Justice that criminal charges be brought

against a company acting in good faith

to identify, disclose, and correct

violations, so long as no serious actual

harm has occurred. Finally, the Agency

will not request voluntary

environmental audits to trigger

enforcement investigations.

The incentives offered in this policy

have been structured above all to protect

human health and the environment. For

example, even where the conditions for

mitigated enforcement are met, EPA will

reserve the right to collect full civil

penalties for criminal conduct,

violations that present an imminent and

substantial endangerment or result in

serious actual harm, or repeat

violations. Sources will not be allowed

to gain an economic advantage over

their competitors by delaying their

investment in compliance. Nor will EPA

hesitate to bring a criminal action

against individuals responsible for

criminal conduct.

EPA is considering additional

incentives for voluntary compliance

beyond the benefits offered in the policy

today. On April 7, 1995, the Agency will

announce 12 Environmental Leadership

Program (ELP) pilot projects with

companies and public agencies to test

criteria for auditing and certification of

voluntary compliance programs. If

successful, standards developed through

Environmental Leadership could lead to

reduced inspections and public

recognition for companies or agencies

with state-of-the-art compliance

programs. In keeping with the

President’s announcement on March 16,

1995, EPA also will shortly be

announcing additional compliance

incentives for small businesses.

The Agency is especially interested in

comments relating to whether this

interim policy appropriately defines the

criteria for determining whether a selfaudit, self-evaluation or disclosure is

voluntary; whether the interim policy

adequately preserves the Agency’s

authority to assess a gravity penalty

component in appropriate cases; and

whether, and according to what criteria,

the Agency should consider giving

credit against the economic benefit

component of a penalty for state-of-theart environmental management systems.

B. Public Process

In May 1994, the Administrator asked

the Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance to determine

whether additional incentives are

needed to encourage voluntary

disclosure and correction of violations

uncovered during environmental audits

and self-evaluations.

In developing this interim policy, the

Agency held a major two-day public

meeting in July 1994 announced in the

Federal Register on June 20, 1994 (59

FR 31914); published a Restatement of

Policies Related to Environmental

Auditing in the Federal Register on July

28, 1994 (59 FR 38455); considered over

80 written comments submitted to the

environmental auditing policy docket;

held a focus group meeting in San

Francisco on January 19, 1995 with key

stakeholders from industry, trade

groups, State environmental

commissions, State attorneys general

offices, district attorneys’ offices,

environmental and public interest

groups, and professional environmental

auditing groups; and held a public

comment session in San Francisco on

January 20, 1995.

In addition to considering opinion

from stakeholders, EPA conducted its

own analysis of relevant facts. For

example, the Agency considered EPA

and other Federal policies relating to

environmental auditing, self-disclosure,

and correction, as well as incentives

suggested by State and local policies

and legislation, and by applications

submitted for the ELP pilot program.

The Agency also considered relevant

surveys on auditing practices and

incentives.

C. Purpose

This interim policy is intended to

promote environmental compliance by

providing greater certainty as to EPA’s

enforcement response to voluntary selfevaluations, and voluntary disclosure

and prompt correction of violations. The

policy further provides guidance for

States and local authorities in

encouraging this behavior among

regulated entities.

Federal laws and regulations set

minimum standards for protecting

human health and achieving

environmental protection goals such as

clean air and clean water. EPA will

continue to uphold these laws through

vigorous enforcement actions that

appropriately penalize violators.

Penalties help ensure a level playing

field by ensuring that violators do not

obtain an unfair economic advantage

over their competitors who made the

necessary investment in compliance.

Penalties also promote protection of the

environment and public health by

encouraging adoption of pollution

prevention and recycling practices that

limit exposure to liability for pollutant

discharges and deterring future

violations by the violator and others.

At the same time, the Agency

recognizes that we cannot achieve

maximum compliance without the

cooperation of a regulated community

willing to act responsibly by detecting,

disclosing, and correcting violations.

Already, regulated entities have many

compelling incentives to implement

environmental management/auditing

systems, as noted in EPA’s 1986

auditing policy. Indeed, recent surveys

show that the vast majority of large

companies engage in environmental

auditing and/or have environmental

management systems in place.

Nonetheless, EPA has concluded that

the additional incentives in this interim

policy will further promote the

regulated community’s commitment to

adopting systems for maximizing

compliance.

D. Principles for Voluntary Compliance

The interim policy that EPA is

announcing today is based on seven

principles:

1. Self-policing by regulated entities

can play a crucial role in finding, fixing

and preventing violations.

2. Violations discovered through selfpolicing should be disclosed and

promptly corrected.

3. Regulated entities that self-police

and that voluntarily disclose and selfcorrect violations in accordance with

this policy should be assessed penalties

that are consistently and predictably

lower than penalties for those who do

not.

4. Regulated entities that self-police

and voluntarily disclose and self-correct

violations in accordance with this

policy should also not be recommended

for criminal prosecution.

5. Providing predictable incentives for

voluntary disclosure and correction of

violations identified through selfpolicing offers a positive alternative to

across-the-board privileges and

immunities that could be used to shield

criminal misconduct, drive up litigation

costs and create an atmosphere of

distrust between regulators, industry

and local communities.

6. EPA should not seek voluntary

environmental audit information to

trigger an investigation of a civil or

criminal violation of environmental

laws.

7. To preserve a level playing field,

EPA should recover any economic

benefit realized from violations of

environmental law.

E. Relationship to Emerging Standards

EPA also recognizes the development

of and growing reliance on international

voluntary environmental management

standards in the U.S. and other
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16877

countries. These standards, if properly

crafted and implemented, can provide a

powerful tool for organizations to

improve their overall compliance with

environmental requirements and move

beyond compliance through innovative

approaches to pollution prevention. In

addition to issuing this interim policy,

EPA will continue to pursue a dialogue

with interested parties and to pilot

policy approaches through programs

such as the ELP to determine how EPA

can make use of and encourage these

standards.

II. Interim Policy

A. Definitions

For purposes of this interim policy,

the following definitions apply:

‘‘Environmental auditing’’ has the

definition given to it in EPA’s 1986

policy on environmental auditing, i.e.

‘‘a systematic, documented, periodic

and objective review by regulated

entities of facility operations and

practices related to meeting

environmental requirements.’’

‘‘Environmental audit report’’ means

all documentation of information

relating to an environmental audit, but

not including the factual information

underlying or testimonial evidence

relating to such information.

‘‘Regulated entity’’ means any entity,

including a federal, state, and municipal

facility, regulated under the federal

environmental laws that EPA

administers.

‘‘Self-evaluation’’ means an

assessment, not necessarily meeting all

the criteria of a full environmental

audit, by a regulated entity of its

compliance with one or more

environmental requirements.

‘‘Voluntary’’ means not required by

statute, regulation, permit, order, or

agreement.

B. Conditions

The conditions for reducing civil

penalties and not making criminal

referrals in accordance with Sections

II.C. and II.D. of this interim policy are

as follows:

1. Voluntary self-policing. The

regulated entity discovers a violation

through a voluntary environmental

audit or voluntary self-evaluation

appropriate to the size and nature of the

regulated entity; and

2. Voluntary disclosure. The regulated

entity fully and voluntarily discloses the

violation in writing to all appropriate

federal, state and local agencies as soon

as it is discovered (including a

reasonable time to determine that a

violation exists), and prior to (1) the

commencement of a federal, state or

local agency inspection, investigation or

information request; (2) notice of a

citizen suit; (3) legal complaint by a

third party; or (4) the regulated entity’s

knowledge that the discovery of the

violation by a regulatory agency or third

party was imminent; and

3. Prompt correction. The regulated

entity corrects the violation either

within 60 days of discovering the

violation or, if more time is needed, as

expeditiously as practicable; and

4. Remediation of imminent and

substantial endangerment. The

regulated entity expeditiously remedies

any condition that has created or may

create an imminent and substantial

endangerment to human health or the

environment; and

5. Remediation of harm and

prevention of repeat violations. The

regulated entity implements appropriate

measures to remedy any environmental

harm due to the violation and to prevent

a recurrence of the violation; and

6. No lack of appropriate preventive

measures. The violation does not

indicate that the regulated entity has

failed to take appropriate steps to avoid

repeat or recurring violations; and

7. Cooperation. The regulated entity

cooperates as required by EPA and

provides such information as is

reasonably necessary and required by

EPA to determine applicability of this

policy. Cooperation may include

providing all requested documents and

access to employees and assistance in

any further investigations into the

violation.

Where appropriate, EPA may require

that to satisfy any of these conditions,

a regulated entity must enter into a

written agreement, administrative

consent order or judicial consent decree,

particularly where compliance or

remedial measures are complex or a

lengthy schedule for attaining and

maintaining compliance or remediating

harm is required.

C. Reduce Civil Penalties for Voluntarily

Disclosed and Promptly Corrected

Violations

1. Incentive

Regulated entities will be eligible for

the following reductions in civil

penalties:

a. EPA will eliminate all of the gravity

component of the penalty for violations

by regulated entities that meet

conditions 1 through 7 outlined in

Section II.B., except for violations

involving (i) criminal conduct by the

regulated entity or any of its employees,

or (ii) an imminent and substantial

endangerment, or serious actual harm,

to human health or the environment.

b. EPA may mitigate up to 75% of the

unadjusted gravity component of the

penalty, taking into account any of

conditions 1–7 in Section II.B. that are

met, in the following cases:

(i) cases in which most but not all of

the conditions in Section II.B. are met;

or

(ii) cases involving an imminent and

substantial endangerment, but not

serious actual harm, in which all the

conditions in Section II.B. are met; or

(iii) cases involving the disclosure of

criminal conduct in which all the

conditions in Section II.B. are met.

c. EPA will retain its full discretion to

recover any economic benefit gained as

a result of noncompliance to preserve a

‘‘level playing field’’ in which violators

do not gain a competitive advantage

through noncompliance. However, EPA

may forgive the entire penalty for

violations which meet conditions 1

through 7 outlined in Section II.B. and,

in EPA’s discretion, do not merit any

penalty due to the insignificant amount

of any economic benefit.

2. Discussion

a. Providing a clear and significant

reduction in civil penalties for

companies that assume responsibility

for finding, disclosing and correcting

violations will create a strong incentive

for regulated entities to prevent or fix

violations before EPA expends

enforcement resources. The policy states

clearly the conditions under which EPA

will forgive all or part of the gravity

component of a penalty for voluntary

disclosure and correction;

b. The policy appropriately preserves

the concept of recovering economic

benefit, except where it is insignificant,

as recommended by a broad spectrum of

commenters, including industry

commenters;

c. Retaining EPA’s discretion to

collect the gravity component of the

penalty in appropriate cases, such as

where a violation involves criminal

conduct, or imminent and substantial

endangerment, will help to deter the

most egregious environmental

violations. At the same time, by

preserving flexibility to reduce the

gravity element by up to 75% for good

faith efforts to disclose and promptly

comply even in those cases, the policy

will retain an appropriate compliance

incentive.

D. Limit Criminal Referrals for

Voluntary Disclosure and Correction of

Violations

1. Incentive

EPA will not recommend to the

Department of Justice that criminal
16878 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices

charges be brought against a regulated

entity where EPA determines that

conditions 1–7 in Section II.B. above for

reduction of civil penalties are met, and

the violation does not demonstrate or

involve (1) a prevalent corporate

management philosophy or practice that

concealed or condoned environmental

violations; (2) high-level corporate

officials’ or managers’ conscious

involvement in or willful blindness to

the violation; or (3) serious actual harm

to human health or the environment.

This policy does not apply to criminal

acts of individual managers or

employees. Where EPA determines

pursuant to this Section that a criminal

referral to the Department of Justice is

unwarranted, EPA may nonetheless

proceed with civil enforcement in

accordance with Section II.C. of this

policy or other applicable enforcement

response and penalty policies.

2. Discussion

The policy will promote candid and

thorough self-policing by providing

greater certainty as to how EPA will

exercise its criminal investigative

discretion to encourage voluntary

disclosure and prompt correction by

regulated entities.

E. Eliminate Routine Requests for Audit

Reports in Pre-Enforcement Proceedings

1. Incentive

EPA will not request a voluntary

environmental audit report to trigger a

civil or criminal investigation. For

example, EPA will not request an audit

in routine inspections. Once the Agency

has reason to believe a violation has

been committed, EPA may seek through

an investigation or enforcement action

any information relevant to identifying

violations or determining liability or

extent of harm.

2. Discussion

a. This policy makes clear that EPA

will not routinely request audit reports.

At the same time, the policy in no way

limits the right of regulated entities to

claim common law privileges (e.g.,

attorney-client and work product) as

appropriate. EPA believes that this

clarification, along with the other

incentives in this interim policy, should

greatly reduce any perception that

environmental audits may be used

unfairly in environmental enforcement.

b. With respect to federal facilities,

although federal facility environmental

audit reports may be accessible to the

public under the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) in certain

circumstances, EPA cannot utilize FOIA

to request information from other

federal agencies. Thus, EPA will apply

this policy on requests for audit reports

to federal (and state and municipal)

facilities the same as it does for other

regulated entities.

F. Applicability

This interim policy applies to

violations under all of the federal

environmental statutes that EPA

administers and supersedes (unless

otherwise noted) any conflicting or

inconsistent provisions in the mediaspecific penalty or enforcement

response policies and EPA’s 1986

Environmental Auditing Policy

Statement. Existing enforcement

policies will continue to apply in

conjunction with this interim policy,

except where inconsistent with this

policy. In addition, where appropriate,

EPA’s Supplemental Environmental

Project Policy may at EPA’s discretion

be applied in conjunction with this

policy.

III. Favor These Incentives Over Broad

Privileges and Immunities

This interim policy offers a positive

alternative to across-the-board privileges

and immunities that could be used to

shield criminal misconduct, drive up

litigation costs and create an

atmosphere of distrust between

regulators, industry and local

communities.

A. Discussion

1. Penalty immunity provisions for

voluntary disclosures of violations can

give lawbreakers an economic advantage

over their law-abiding competitors. It

makes sense to give substantial penalty

reductions for those who come forward

with their violations and promptly

correct them, but to maintain a level

playing field, the federal and state

governments must be able to recoup the

economic benefit of violations.

2. A principal rationale for

environmental audit privileges and

penalty immunities for voluntary

disclosures is to reduce the exposure of

regulated entities that conduct selfevaluations and act on the findings by

immediately correcting violations. EPA

has addressed this concern with the

incentives for disclosure and correction

outlined above.

3. Privilege runs counter to efforts to

open up environmental decisionmaking

and encourage public participation in

matters that affect people’s homes,

workplaces and communities.

4. An environmental audit privilege

could be misused to shield bad actors or

to frustrate access to crucial factual

information.

5. Environmental audit privileges and

penalty immunities could encourage

increased litigation as opposing lawyers

battle over what is privileged or

immune from penalties and what is not.

Litigation over the scope of the

privileges and immunities could burden

our already taxed judicial system, drain

government and private resources, and

in some cases prevent quick action to

address environmental emergencies.

6. The Supreme Court has noted,

‘‘privileges are not lightly created nor

expansively construed for they are in

derogation of the search for the truth.’’

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,

710 (1974). Moreover, the selfevaluation privilege has regularly and

uniformly been rejected by the courts in

cases where documents were sought by

a governmental agency.

IV. Consequences for States

EPA recognizes that states are

important partners in federal

enforcement, and that it is desirable to

create a climate in which states can be

innovative. At the same time, EPA is

required to establish a certain minimum

consistency in federal enforcement, so

that the sanctions a business faces for

violating federal law do not depend on

where the business is located.

Accordingly, to maintain national

consistency:

A. EPA will scrutinize enforcement

more closely in states with audit

privilege and/or penalty immunity laws

and may find it necessary to increase

federal enforcement where

environmental self-evaluation privileges

or penalty immunities prevent a state

from obtaining:

1. information needed to establish

criminal liability;

2. facts needed to establish the nature

and extent of a violation;

3. appropriate penalties for imminent

and substantial endangerment or serious

harm to human health or the

environment, or from recovering

economic benefit;

4. appropriate sanctions or penalties

for criminal conduct and repeat

violations; or

5. prompt correction of violations,

and expeditious remediation of those

that involve imminent and substantial

endangerment to human health or the

environment.

B. EPA will bring to the state’s

attention any provisions of state audit

privilege and/or penalty immunity

statutes that raise any of the concerns

outlined above, and will work with the

state to address those concerns and

ensure that federal requirements are

satisfied.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Notices 16879

V. Limitations on Applicability of This

Policy

This interim policy sets forth internal

guidelines which amend EPA’s penalty

policies in situations involving

voluntary self-policing, disclosure and

correction. In conjunction with the

applicable penalty policy, these

guidelines will aid EPA personnel in

proposing appropriate penalties or

negotiating settlements in

administrative and judicial enforcement

actions. The interim policy also serves

to structure the Agency’s enforcement

authority and states the Agency’s view

as to the proper allocation of its

enforcement resources. Deviations from

these guidelines, where merited, are

authorized so long as the reasons for the

deviations are documented.

This interim policy is not final agency

action, but is intended solely as

guidance. It is not intended, nor can it

be relied upon, to create any rights

enforceable by any party in litigation

with the United States. EPA officials

may decide to follow the guidance

provided in this interim policy or to act

at variance with the guidance based on

analysis of case-specific facts and

circumstances. Application of this

policy to the facts of any individual case

is at the sole discretion of EPA and is

not subject to review by any court. In

addition, the policy has no effect on the

calculation of any cleanup costs,

remedial costs, natural resources

damages or emergency response costs

associated with a violation. EPA

reserves the right to change this interim

policy at any time without public

notice.

Dated: March 30, 1995.

Steven A. Herman,

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 95–8218 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Information Collection Submitted to

OMB for Review

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation.

ACTION: Extension of comment period on

proposed revisions to Country Exposure

Report (FFIEC 009).

SUMMARY: On March 16, 1995, the FDIC

requested comment on proposed

revisions to the Country Exposure

Report (FFIEC 009). The Federal

Financial Institutions Examination

Council (FFIEC) proposed to implement

the report as of March 31, 1995.

However, the FFIEC has asked that the

comment period be extended to give the

public additional time to provide

comment. In addition, the

implementation date of the proposed

revisions to the reporting form will be

delayed until not earlier than September

30, 1995, to provide institutions with

additional time to modify their systems

and to resolve conceptual issues related

to the report.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 21, 1995.

OMB REVIEWER: Milo Sunderhauf, (202)

395–7340, Office of Management and

Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project

3064–0017, Washington, DC 20503.

FDIC CONTACT: Steven F. Hanft, (202)

898–3907, Office of the Executive

Secretary, room F–400, Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street

NW., Washington, DC 20429.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the submission

may be obtained by calling or writing

the FDIC contact identified above.

Comments regarding the submission

should be addressed to both the OMB

reviewer and the FDIC contact.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

16, 1995 (60 FR 14285), the FDIC

invited comment on proposed revisions

to the Country Exposure Report (FFIEC

009). The FFIEC has received a request

to extend the comment period and delay

the implementation date of the

proposed revisions. In view of the

significance of the new items that are

proposed in the report, the FDIC is

extending the comment period to April

21, 1995, and delaying the proposed

implementation date to not earlier than

September 30, 1995.

Dated: March 29, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Steven F. Hanft,

Assistant Executive Secretary

(Administration).

[FR Doc. 95–8106 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Dental Research;

Notice of Closed Meetings

Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

is hereby given of the following

National Institute of Dental Research

Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

Name of SEP: National Institute of Dental

Research Special Emphasis Panel—Minority

Oral Health Study.

Dates: May 2–3, 1995.

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: Marriott Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hill

Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

Contact Person: Dr. Philip Washko,

Scientific Review Administrator, 4500 Center

Drive, Natcher Building, room 4AN–38J,

Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594–2372.

Purpose/Agenda

To evaluate and review grant applications

and/or contract proposals.

Name of SEP: National Institute of Dental

Research Special Emphasis Panel—Research

on Pulp Biology.

Dates: June 1–2, 1995.

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: Marriott Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hill

Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

Contact Person: Dr. Philip Washko,

Scientific Review Administration, 4500

Center Drive, Natcher Building, room 4AN–

38J, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594–2372.

Purpose/Agenda

To evaluate and review grant applications

and/or contract proposals.

Name of SEP: National Institute of Dental

Research Special Emphasis Panel—Dentist

Scientist Award.

Dates: June 5–6, 1995.

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: Marriott Pooks Hill, 5151 Pooks Hill

Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.

Contact Person: Dr. George Hausch, Chief,

Review Section, 4500 Center Drive, Natcher

Building, room 4AN–38J, Bethesda, MD

20892, (301) 594–2372.

Purpose/Agenda

To evaluate and review grant applications

and/or contract proposals.

The meetings will be closed in

accordance with the provision set forth

in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title

5, U.S.C. Applications and/or proposals

and the discussions could reveal

confidential trade secrets or commercial

property such as patentable material

and personal information concerning

individuals associated with the

applications and/or proposals, the

disclosure of which would constitute a

clearly unwarranted invasion of

personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.121, Oral Diseases and

Disorders Research)

Dated: March 28, 1995.

Susan K. Feldman,

Committee Management Officer, NIH.

[FR Doc. 95–8119 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140–01–M

National Institute of Mental Health;

Notice of Cancellation of Meeting

Notice is hereby given of the

cancellation of one meeting of the