445C.070 Mitigating factors considered by court in determining criminal penalty for violation; written agreement regarding environmental audit may be modified; authority of regulatory agency not limited by mitigation of criminal penalty.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a court that is determining the appropriate criminal penalty to impose against a regulated person who is convicted for a violation of an environmental requirement shall consider, in mitigation of the penalty, whether:
(a) An environmental audit was conducted pursuant to a written agreement with the appropriate regulatory agency and the agreement prescribed the:
(1) Scope, methods and schedule for conducting the audit;
(2) Manner in which a violation of an environmental requirement must be reported to the regulatory agency, including, but not limited to, the number of days after the discovery of a violation that the regulated person must report the violation to the regulatory agency; and
(3) Period within which such a violation must be corrected;
(b) The regulated person voluntarily disclosed the results of the environmental audit to the appropriate regulatory agency in accordance with the requirements of the written agreement;
(c) The regulatory agency discovered the violation of the environmental requirement as a result of the voluntary disclosure in the environmental audit and before:
(1) The occurrence of any inspection or investigation of the regulated facility by a regulatory agency or other governmental entity; or
(2) The commencement of an administrative proceeding or a civil or criminal action against the regulated person for the violation;
(d) The regulated person or regulated facility has not been issued a citation for a violation of the environmental requirement in the immediately preceding 3 years;
(e) The regulated person did not obtain an actual economic benefit or advantage as a result of the violation; and
(f) The regulated person entered into an enforceable agreement with the appropriate regulatory agency to:
(1) Comply, as soon as practicable after the violation, with the environmental requirement;
(2) Remedy any damage or other harm caused by the violation; and
(3) Take action to prevent a recurrence of the violation.
2. A written agreement that prescribes the scope, methods and schedule for conducting an environmental audit may be reasonably modified if the regulated person and the regulatory agency specifically agree to the modification.
3. If a federal statute or regulation provides for the imposition of a specific penalty for a violation of an environmental requirement, a voluntary disclosure that complies with the provisions of subsection 1 is, to the extent permitted under that statute or regulation, a mitigating factor to be considered by the court when determining the penalty for the violation.
4. The mitigation of a criminal penalty pursuant to subsection 1 does not limit the authority of a regulatory agency to order a regulated person to comply with an environmental requirement whose violation it discovered because the regulated person voluntarily disclosed the results of an environmental audit.
445C.070 Mitigating factors considered by court in determining criminal penalty for violation; written agreement regarding environmental audit may be modified; authority of regulatory agency not limited by mitigation of criminal penalty.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a court that is determining the appropriate criminal penalty to impose against a regulated person who is convicted for a violation of an environmental requirement shall consider, in mitigation of the penalty, whether:
(a) An environmental audit was conducted pursuant to a written agreement with the appropriate regulatory agency and the agreement prescribed the:
(1) Scope, methods and schedule for conducting the audit;
(2) Manner in which a violation of an environmental requirement must be reported to the regulatory agency, including, but not limited to, the number of days after the discovery of a violation that the regulated person must report the violation to the regulatory agency; and
(3) Period within which such a violation must be corrected;
(b) The regulated person voluntarily disclosed the results of the environmental audit to the appropriate regulatory agency in accordance with the requirements of the written agreement;
(c) The regulatory agency discovered the violation of the environmental requirement as a result of the voluntary disclosure in the environmental audit and before:
(1) The occurrence of any inspection or investigation of the regulated facility by a regulatory agency or other governmental entity; or
(2) The commencement of an administrative proceeding or a civil or criminal action against the regulated person for the violation;
(d) The regulated person or regulated facility has not been issued a citation for a violation of the environmental requirement in the immediately preceding 3 years;
(e) The regulated person did not obtain an actual economic benefit or advantage as a result of the violation; and
(f) The regulated person entered into an enforceable agreement with the appropriate regulatory agency to:
(1) Comply, as soon as practicable after the violation, with the environmental requirement;
(2) Remedy any damage or other harm caused by the violation; and
(3) Take action to prevent a recurrence of the violation.
2. A written agreement that prescribes the scope, methods and schedule for conducting an environmental audit may be reasonably modified if the regulated person and the regulatory agency specifically agree to the modification.
3. If a federal statute or regulation provides for the imposition of a specific penalty for a violation of an environmental requirement, a voluntary disclosure that complies with the provisions of subsection 1 is, to the extent permitted under that statute or regulation, a mitigating factor to be considered by the court when determining the penalty for the violation.
4. The mitigation of a criminal penalty pursuant to subsection 1 does not limit the authority of a regulatory agency to order a regulated person to comply with an environmental requirement whose violation it discovered because the regulated person voluntarily disclosed the results of an environmental audit.
445C.070 Mitigating factors considered by court in determining criminal penalty for violation; written agreement regarding environmental audit may be modified; authority of regulatory agency not limited by mitigation of criminal penalty.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a court that is determining the appropriate criminal penalty to impose against a regulated person who is convicted for a violation of an environmental requirement shall consider, in mitigation of the penalty, whether:
(a) An environmental audit was conducted pursuant to a written agreement with the appropriate regulatory agency and the agreement prescribed the:
(1) Scope, methods and schedule for conducting the audit;
(2) Manner in which a violation of an environmental requirement must be reported to the regulatory agency, including, but not limited to, the number of days after the discovery of a violation that the regulated person must report the violation to the regulatory agency; and
(3) Period within which such a violation must be corrected;
(b) The regulated person voluntarily disclosed the results of the environmental audit to the appropriate regulatory agency in accordance with the requirements of the written agreement;
(c) The regulatory agency discovered the violation of the environmental requirement as a result of the voluntary disclosure in the environmental audit and before:
(1) The occurrence of any inspection or investigation of the regulated facility by a regulatory agency or other governmental entity; or
(2) The commencement of an administrative proceeding or a civil or criminal action against the regulated person for the violation;
(d) The regulated person or regulated facility has not been issued a citation for a violation of the environmental requirement in the immediately preceding 3 years;
(e) The regulated person did not obtain an actual economic benefit or advantage as a result of the violation; and
(f) The regulated person entered into an enforceable agreement with the appropriate regulatory agency to:
(1) Comply, as soon as practicable after the violation, with the environmental requirement;
(2) Remedy any damage or other harm caused by the violation; and
(3) Take action to prevent a recurrence of the violation.
2. A written agreement that prescribes the scope, methods and schedule for conducting an environmental audit may be reasonably modified if the regulated person and the regulatory agency specifically agree to the modification.
3. If a federal statute or regulation provides for the imposition of a specific penalty for a violation of an environmental requirement, a voluntary disclosure that complies with the provisions of subsection 1 is, to the extent permitted under that statute or regulation, a mitigating factor to be considered by the court when determining the penalty for the violation.
4. The mitigation of a criminal penalty pursuant to subsection 1 does not limit the authority of a regulatory agency to order a regulated person to comply with an environmental requirement whose violation it discovered because the regulated person voluntarily disclosed the results of an environmental audit.
