59724 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

additional statements must be truthful,

accurate and specific, within the

meaning of section 4.38(f). Many

commenters disagreed with our

proposal, maintaining that varietal and

semi-generic names should only be used

on products that are 100 percent

standard grape wine. For example, one

commenter stated the following:

[T]here should be no provision for showing

a varietal designation or a semi generic

designation (and related appellation of

origin) in any way, including in a statement

of composition, anywhere on a label of any

wine product that is not a standard grape

wine. That includes, of course, any otherthan-standard wine, substandard wine and/or

flavored wine product.

Another commenter stated that

‘‘[v]arietal, semi-generic names and

appellations of origin should only be

used on Class I, Class II and Class III

wines. They should not be used on any

other class of wine, nor on any ‘wine

specialty products.’ ’’ Another comment,

representing three Washington State

wine organizations, maintained that

‘‘[p]ermitting the use of varietal or semigeneric names on products that are not

in fact 100% [standard grape] wine will

simply add to consumer confusion.’’

Accordingly, we are amending the

regulations to provide that wine labels

may not contain any varietal name, type

designation of varietal significance,

semi-generic name, or geographic

distinctive designation in the brand

name, product name, or distinctive or

fanciful name, unless the wine is made

in accordance with the standards

prescribed in classes 1, 2, or 3 (i.e.,

grape wine, sparkling grape wine, or

carbonated grape wine). Any other use

of such a designation on other than a

class 1, 2, or 3 wine is presumed

misleading. This amendment is similar

to one proposed by the Wine Institute in

its comment on the proposed

regulations. The Wine Institute

represents over 500 California winery

and associate members. We believe this

amendment is necessary to ensure that

consumers are adequately informed as

to the identity and quality of the wine,

and to prevent consumer deception.

X. Applications for and Certification of

Label Approval

Upon the effective date of this

Treasury decision, i.e., January 1, 2001,

applications for certificates of label

approval must be in compliance with

the regulations. In accordance with the

provisions of 27 CFR 13.51 and

13.72(a)(2), upon the effective date of

this Treasury decision, certificates of

label approval that are not in

compliance with the regulations will be

revoked by operation of regulation.

Certificate holders must voluntarily

surrender all certificates that are no

longer in compliance and submit

applications for new certificates that are

in compliance with the new

requirements.

How This Document Complies With the

Federal Administrative Requirements

for Rulemaking

A. Executive Order 12866

We have determined that this final

rule is not a significant regulatory action

as defined in E.O. 12866. Therefore, a

regulatory assessment is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small government jurisdictions. We

hereby certify that this final rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. Since producers routinely make

changes to their labels, we do not

believe that the final regulation will

result in any additional burdens on the

industry. Accordingly, a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part

1320, do not apply to this final rule

because no requirement to collect

information is imposed.

Disclosure

Copies of the notice of proposed

rulemaking, all written comments, and

this final rule will be available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at: ATF Public Reading

Room, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

Drafting Information

The author of this document is James

P. Ficaretta, Regulations Division,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 4

Advertising, Consumer protection,

Customs duties and inspection, Imports,

Labeling, Packaging and containers,

Wine.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, ATF amends 27 CFR part 4 as

follows:

PART 4—LABELING AND

ADVERTISING OF WINE

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 4 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

Par. 2. Section 4.34(a) is amended by

adding a sentence after the seventh

sentence to read as follows:

§ 4.34 Class and type.

(a) * * * The statement of

composition will not include any

reference to a varietal (grape type)

designation, type designation of varietal

significance, semi-generic geographic

type designation, or geographic

distinctive designation. * * *

* * * * *

Par. 3. Section 4.39 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (n) to read as

follows:

§ 4.39 Prohibited practices.

(n) Use of a varietal name, type

designation of varietal significance,

semi-generic name, or geographic

distinctive designation. Labels that

contain in the brand name, product

name, or distinctive or fanciful name,

any varietal (grape type) designation,

type designation of varietal significance,

semi-generic geographic type

designation, or geographic distinctive

designation, are misleading unless the

wine is made in accordance with the

standards prescribed in classes 1, 2, or

3 of § 4.21. Any other use of such a

designation on other than a class 1, 2,

or 3 wine is presumed misleading.

Signed: August 4, 2000.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

Approved: September 5, 2000.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Regulatory,

Tariff and Trade Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 00–25706 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons

28 CFR Part 541

[BOP–1083–F]

RIN 1120–AA78

Inmate Discipline: Prohibited Acts

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59725

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: In this document the Bureau

of Prisons amends its regulations on

inmate discipline regarding violations of

the telephone and smoking policies. The

amendment establishes a greatest

severity category prohibited act for use

of the telephone to further criminal

activity and a high severity and

moderate category prohibited act for use

of the telephone for abuses other than

criminal activity. Other minor telephone

infractions remain covered by the

existing low moderate severity level

category prohibited act. The amendment

also elevates violations of the smoking

policy to a moderate category prohibited

act. The amendment is intended to

address the seriousness of certain types

of telephone abuse and deter criminal

activity and protect the security and

good order of the institution. The

amendment is also intended to promote

a clean air environment and to protect

the health and safety of staff and

inmates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Rules Unit, Office of

General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons,

HOLC Room 739, 320 First Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20534.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202)

514–6655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) finalizes this

amendment to its regulations in 28 CFR

part 541, subpart B on inmate discipline

regarding misuse of the telephone and

smoking where prohibited. We

published the proposed rule in the

Federal Register on February 25, 1999

(64 FR 9432). We received comments

from five respondents, all current

federal inmates.

One commenter believes the current

severity level for smoking where

prohibited is adequate and does not

believe elevating the severity level is

necessary. The commenter believes the

Bureau did not provide an adequate

explanation supporting an increase in

the severity level for smoking where

prohibited. This commenter also states

that nicotine addiction should be

recognized as a serious medical

condition requiring treatment and

therapy and that smoking cessation

programs and nicotine patches should

be offered to assist those inmates who

wish to quit smoking instead of

elevating the severity level of the

offense.

In a separate rulemaking, we

proposed revisions to its policy on

smoking which limits smoking in

Bureau facilities to visibly designated

outdoor locations, unless an indoor area

has been designated as a smoking area

to be used exclusively for authorized

religious activity. The proposed

revisions also permit the Warden, with

the concurrence of the Regional

Director, not to designate smoking areas

for general use. We believe that

elevating the severity level for smoking

where prohibited will assist in

emphasizing the importance of limiting

exposure to tobacco smoke to the

designated areas. To assist those who

wish to quit smoking, we plan to

expand smoking cessation programs

available to inmates and to make

nicotine patches available at inmate

expense through commissary purchase.

Two commenters state the Bureau

currently has the ability to detect

improper use of the telephone, with one

commenter stating that any criminal

activity taking place on the telephone

should be punished in the court system.

The purpose of the amendment is to

address the seriousness of inmate use of

the telephone to further criminal

activity and other serious abuses of the

telephone privilege which could

threaten the security of the institution or

public. Upgrading administrative

sanctions for various forms of telephone

abuse does not preclude subsequent

criminal prosecution.

Two commenters believe that the

current severity level for misuse of the

telephone is sufficient in that an inmate

may be charged in terms of greater

severity according to the nature of the

unauthorized use. The existing low

moderate severity level prohibited act

concerning unauthorized use of the

telephone does not adequately address

the more serious problem of inmates

engaging in or continuing criminal

activity and other serious abuses of their

telephone privileges. Since the current

policy was implemented, there have

been significant technological advances

in telephone communication capability

which afford inmates with the

opportunity to circumvent telephone

regulations without staff knowledge.

Also, the sanctions available under the

existing low severity prohibited act are

simply too low to deter inmates from

abusing their telephone privileges.

Establishing a greatest severity category

and high severity category for criminal

use of the telephone and other serious

abuses of telephone privileges offers

staff more significant sanctions which

the Bureau believes will act as a

deterrent. The Bureau’s goal is to ensure

that inmates, once incarcerated, do not

use telephones to continue criminal

activity. As noted below, the Bureau has

chosen to add a moderate category

prohibited act covering some of the

abuses listed in the high category

prohibited act in order to give staff

flexibility in assessing the seriousness of

the violations.

Four commenters challenge the

raising in severity level for three-way

calls, call forwarding, and emergency

telephone calls via another inmate’s PIN

number. One commenter states that

because there is no ‘‘criminal intent’’

these types of calls should only be

classified as minor offenses. Third-party

calling, conference calling, possession

and/or use of another inmate’s PIN

number are methods used by inmates to

attempt to avoid the Bureau’s telephone

monitoring detection devices and can be

a means to engage in further criminal

activity and other more serious abuses

of the telephone. Current telephone

regulations prohibit an inmate from

possessing another inmate’s telephone

access code number. Third party billing

and electronic transfer of a call to a

third party are also prohibited. We

acknowledge that there may be

differences in the seriousness of these

violations. Accordingly, in this final

rule, we add a moderate category

prohibited act for such abuses in order

to give staff flexibility in assessing the

seriousness of the violations.

Two of these commenters suggest that

inmates resort to conference calls and

third-party calls in order to reach family

members who have been taken to a

hospital or in order to reach attorneys or

court officials. The telephone

regulations provide that the Warden

may allow a call to be made under

compelling circumstances such as when

an inmate has lost contact with his

family or has a family emergency. Unit

staff are available to assist an inmate in

making a telephone call during an

emergency. Inmates may also

communicate with family and friends

through normal correspondence

procedures. Requests for unmonitored

telephone calls to attorneys are always

handled separately through staff in

order to confirm the legal nature of the

telephone call.

The current low moderate severity

level prohibited act remains for minor

telephone infractions such as talking

beyond the 15-minute time period and

using the telephone in an unauthorized

area. For administrative management

reasons, the Bureau is separating

unauthorized use of mail from

unauthorized use of the telephone in its

low moderate severity level.

Unauthorized use of mail remains in

Code 406 while unauthorized use of the

telephone is now in new Code 497.

We also received a tort claim from one

inmate alleging the regulations are

59726 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

vague. While this claim is being

processed under the procedures for tort

claims, we are also treating it as a

comment on the proposed regulation.

This commenter claims, among other

things, that the prohibited act of

‘‘Killing’’ (Code 100) is

‘‘unconstitutionally vague, ambiguous

and imprecise, because the rule

provides no definition of what behavior

and conduct constitutes ‘‘Killing.’’ A

person could be charged with a

violation of the rule arbitrarily for

simply killing time.’’ The commenter,

however, does not specifically address

the proposed changes to the telephone

and smoking prohibited acts. We are

concerned with the clarity of our

regulations and believe the wording of

the prohibited acts is sufficiently clear.

Even so, in keeping with plain language

initiatives, we intend to issue a

complete ‘‘Plain Language’’ revision of

the discipline policy for public

comment.

Executive Order 12866

This rule falls within a category of

actions that the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has determined not

to constitute ‘‘significant regulatory

actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive

Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was

not reviewed by OMB.

Executive Order 13132

This regulation will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 13132,

it is determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons,

in accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has

reviewed this regulation and by

approving it certifies that this regulation

will not have a significant economic

impact upon a substantial number of

small entities for the following reasons:

This rule pertains to the correctional

management of offenders committed to

the custody of the Attorney General or

the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,

and its economic impact is limited to

the Bureau’s appropriated funds.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more

in any one year, and it will not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Therefore, no actions were

deemed necessary under the provisions

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as

defined by § 804 of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996. This rule will not result in an

annual effect on the economy of

$100,000,000 or more; a major increase

in costs or prices; or significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability of United States-based

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and

export markets.

Plain Language Instructions

We try to write clearly. If you can

suggest how to improve the clarity of

these regulations, call or write Sarah

Qureshi, Rules Unit, Office of General

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, HOLC

Room 754, 320 First Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20534, 202–514–6655.

Members of the public may submit

comments concerning this rule by

writing to the previously cited address.

These comments will be considered but

will receive no response in the Federal

Register.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 541

Prisoners.

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer,

Director, Bureau of Prisons.

Accordingly, pursuant to the

rulemaking authority vested in the

Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and

delegated to the Director, Bureau of

Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), we amend

part 541 in subchapter C of 28 CFR,

chapter V as follows.

SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL

MANAGEMENT

PART 541—INMATE DISCIPLINE AND

SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS

1. The authority citation for 28 CFR

part 541 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621,

3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed

in part as to offenses committed on or after

November 1, 1987), 4161–4166 (Repealed as

to offenses committed on or after November

1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed October 12,

1984 as to offenses committed after that

date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95–

0.99.

§ 541.13 [Amended]

2. In § 541.13, Table 3 is amended by:

A. Adding a new code 197 under the

greatest category prohibited act,

B. Adding a new code 297 under the

high category prohibited act,

C. Adding new codes 332 and 397

under the moderate category prohibited

act,

D. Revising the word ‘‘belong’’ in

code 400 as ‘‘belonging’’, and

E. Revising codes 403 and 406 and

adding code 497 under the low

moderate category prohibited act.

§ 541.13 Prohibited acts and disciplinary

severity scale.

TABLE 3.—PROHIBITED ACTS AND DISCIPLINARY SEVERITY SCALE

Code Prohibited acts Sanctions

GREATEST CATEGORY

*******

197 .................... Use of the telephone to further criminal activity.

*******

HIGH CATEGORY

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59727

TABLE 3.—PROHIBITED ACTS AND DISCIPLINARY SEVERITY SCALE—Continued

Code Prohibited acts Sanctions

*******

297 .................... Use of the telephone for abuses other than criminal activity (e.g., circumventing

telephone monitoring procedures, possession and/or use of another inmate’s

PIN number; third-party calling; third-party billing; using credit card numbers to

place telephone calls, conference calling; talking in code).

*******

MODERATE CATEGORY

*******

332 .................... Smoking where prohibited.

*******

397 .................... Use of the telephone for abuses other than criminal activity (e.g., conference calling, possession and/or use of another inmate’s PIN number, three-way calling,

providing false information for preparation of a telephone list).

*******

LOW MODERATE CATEGORY

*******

403 .................... (Not to be used).

*******

406 .................... Unauthorized use of mail (Restriction, or loss for a specific period of time, of these

privileges may often be an appropriate sanction G) (May be categorized and

charged in terms of greater severity, according to the nature of the unauthorized

use; e.g., the mail is used for planning, facilitating, committing an armed assault

on the institution’s secure perimeter, would be charged as a Code 101 Assault).

*******

497 .................... Use of the telephone for abuses other than criminal activity (e.g., exceeding the

15-minute time limit for telephone calls; using the telephone in an unauthorized

area; placing of an unauthorized individual on the telephone list).

*******

[FR Doc. 00–25729 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA088–5051a; FRL–6880–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

Revised 15% Plan for Northern Virginia

Portion of the Metropolitan

Washington, DC Ozone Nonattainment

Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is converting its

conditional interim approval of a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia (the ‘‘Commonwealth’’) to a full

approval. This revision satisfies the 15

percent rate of progress (ROP) plan (the

15% plan) requirements of the Clean Air

Act (the Act) for the Northern Virginia

portion of the Metropolitan Washington,

DC ozone nonattainment area (the

Washington area). The intended effect of

this action is to convert the conditional

interim approval to a full approval

because the Commonwealth has

fulfilled the conditions listed in EPA’s

conditional interim approval of the

original 15% plan for the Northern

Virginia portion of the Washington area.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on November 20, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by November 6, 2000. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and

Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode

3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency—Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at:

Air Protection Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103;

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460; and

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality, 629 East Main Street,

Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

Persons interested in examining these

documents should schedule an

appointment with the contact person

(listed below) at least 24 hours before

the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Lewis, (215) 814–2185, at the