Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66515

chemical or biological weapons

proliferation in named countries

(§ 744.6); nuclear propulsion (§ 744.5);

aircraft and vessels (§ 744.7); embargoed

countries (part 746); countries

designated as supporters of acts of

international terrorism (§§ 742.8, 742.9,

742.10, 746.2, 746.3, 746.5, and 746.7);

and, Libya (§§ 744.8 and 746.4).

Attention is also given in this context to

the controls on nuclear-related

commodities and technology (§ 744.2

and § 744.2), which are, in part,

implemented under section 309(c) of the

Nuclear Non Proliferation Act.

Under the provisions of section 6 of

the Export Administration Act of 1979,

as amended (EAA), export controls

maintained for foreign policy purposes

require annual extension. Section 6 of

the EAA requires a report to Congress

when foreign policy-based export

controls are extended. Although the

Export Administration Act (EAA)

expired on August 20, 1994, the

President invoked the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act and

continued in effect the EAR, and, to the

extent permitted by law, the provisions

of the EAA, in Executive Order 12924 of

August 19, 1994, as extended by the

President’s notices of August 15, 1995

(60 FR 42767), August 14, 1996 (61 FR

42527), August 13, 1997 (62 FR 43629),

August 13, 1998 (63 FR 44121), August

10, 1999 (64 FR 44101, August 13, 1999)

and August 3, 2000 (65 FR 48347,

August 8, 2000). The Department of

Commerce, insofar as appropriate, is

following the provisions of section 6 in

reviewing foreign policy-based export

controls, requesting public comments

on such controls, and submitting a

report to Congress.

In January 2000, the Secretary of

Commerce, on the recommendation of

the Secretary of State, extended for one

year all foreign policy controls then in

effect.

To assure maximum public

participation in the review process,

comments are solicited on the extension

or revision of the existing foreign policy

controls for another year. Among the

criteria considered in determining

whether to continue or revise U.S.

foreign policy controls are the

following:

1. The likelihood that such controls

will achieve the intended foreign policy

purpose, in light of other factors,

including the availability from other

countries of the goods or technology

proposed for such controls;

2. Whether the foreign policy purpose

of such controls can be achieved

through negotiations or other alternative

means;

3. The compatibility of the controls

with the foreign policy objectives of the

United States and with overall United

States policy toward the country subject

to the controls;

4. The reaction of other countries to

the extension of such controls by the

United States is not likely to render the

controls ineffective in achieving the

intended foreign policy purpose or be

counterproductive to United States

foreign policy interests;

5. The comparative benefits to U.S.

foreign policy objectives versus the

effect of the controls on the export

performance of the United States, the

competitive position of the United

States in the international economy, the

international reputation of the United

States as a supplier of goods and

technology; and

6. The ability of the United States to

enforce the controls effectively.

BXA is particularly interested in the

experience of individual exporters in

complying with the proliferation

controls, with emphasis on economic

impact and specific instances of

business lost to foreign competitors.

BXA is also interested in industry

information relating to the following:

1. Information on the effect of foreign

policy controls on sales of U.S. products

to third countries (i.e., those countries

not targeted by sanctions), including the

views of foreign purchasers or

prospective customers regarding U.S.

foreign policy controls.

2. Information on controls maintained

by U.S. trade partners (i.e., to what

extent do they have similar controls on

goods and technology on a worldwide

basis or to specific destinations)?

3. Information on licensing policies or

practices by our foreign trade partners

which are similar to U.S. foreign policy

controls, including license review

criteria, use of conditions, requirements

for pre and post shipment verifications

(preferably supported by examples of

approvals, denials and foreign

regulations.

4. Suggestions for revisions to foreign

policy controls that would (if there are

any differences) bring them more into

line with multilateral practice.

5. Comments or suggestions as to

actions that would make multilateral

controls more effective.

6. Information that illustrates the

effect of foreign policy controls on the

trade or acquisitions by intended targets

of the controls.

7. Data or other information as to the

effect of foreign policy controls on

overall trade, either for individual firms

or for individual industrial sectors.

8. Suggestions as to how to measure

the effect of foreign policy controls on

trade.

9. Information on the use of foreign

policy controls on targeted countries,

entities, or individuals.

BXA is also interested in comments

relating generally to the extension or

revision of existing foreign policy

controls.

Parties submitting comments are

asked to be as specific as possible. All

comments received before the close of

the comment period will be considered

by BXA in reviewing the controls and

developing the report to Congress.

All information relating to the notice

will be a matter of public record and

will be available for public inspection

and copying. In the interest of accuracy

and completeness, BXA requires written

comments. Oral comments must be

followed by written memoranda, which

will also be a matter of public record

and will be available for public review

and copying.

Copies of the public record

concerning these regulations may be

requested from: Bureau of Export

Administration, Office of

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 6883, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; (202) 482–0637. This

component does not maintain a separate

public inspection facility. Requesters

should first view BXA’s website (which

can be reached through http://

www.bxa.doc.gov). If requesters cannot

access BXA’s website, please call the

number above for assistance.

Daniel O. Hill,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Export

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–28440 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1026

Standards of Conduct for Outside

Attorneys Practicing Before the

Consumer Product Safety

Commission; Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety

Commission is proposing to amend its

regulations to add a new part addressing

the behavior of attorneys on matters

before the Commission. The behavior of

attorneys who represent clients in

66516 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1The Commission voted 2–1 to propose this rule.

Commissioner Gall voted against proposing the

rule. Her dissenting statement is available from the

Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, DC 20207–0001.

Commissioner Moore voted in favor of publishing

the rule but filed a separate statement. His

statement is also available from the Office of the

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207–0001.

2Misconduct by Agency employees is dealt with

under internal personnel rules.

Commission adjudicative proceedings is

governed by 16 CFR part 1025. The new

part would cover attorney behavior in

any matter before the Commission other

than an adjudication. It would also

establish the procedure for addressing

allegations against attorneys.

DATES: Written comments in response to

this notice of proposed rulemaking must

be received by the Commission January

5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed, preferably in five (5) copies, to

the Office of the Secretary, Consumer

Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207–0001, or

delivered to the Office of the Secretary,

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Room 502, 4330 East West Highway,

Bethesda, Maryland; Telephone (301)

504–0800. Comments may also be filed

by telefacsimile to (301) 504–0127 or by

email to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. Comments

should be captioned ‘‘NPR for Outside

Attorneys.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa V. Hampshire, Attorney, Office

of the General Counsel, Consumer

Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301)

504–0980 ext. 2208; facsimile (301)

504–0403; email mhampsh@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Scope

The Commission does not have rules

governing the behavior of attorneys

outside the context of a formal

adjudication. As a result, the

Commission is unable to take agency

action against attorneys who are alleged

to have acted in a manner prohibited by

the State or District of Columbia bar

disciplinary rules applicable to the

attorney, unless an administrative

complaint has been filed in the matter.

The Commission conducts the

majority of its business outside of

adjudicatory proceedings. For example,

compliance staff often negotiate with

attorneys during an investigation or

inquiry about a product, on a voluntary

corrective action plan for that product,

and, if necessary, on a civil penalty with

respect to that product. Other

Commission staff deal with attorneys on

these and other matters, including

regulatory proceedings pursuant to the

statutes the Commission administers. If

an attorney acts in a prohibited manner

in these or similar contexts, the

Commission cannot now sanction such

conduct. The proposed new part is

intended to address this gap in the

regulations.

The Commission is proposing a rule 1

to govern attorney conduct in any

matter where Commissioners or

Commission staff are acting in their

official capacities, outside the context of

adjudications.

Definitions

The proposed rule defines

‘‘prohibited conduct’’ as action by an

attorney in a manner prohibited by the

state or District of Columbia

disciplinary rules applicable to the

attorney or otherwise in bad faith.

Attorneys are subject to sanction if the

prohibited conduct occurs when no

administrative case is filed, or prior to

the filing of an administrative

complaint, or afterwards when an

administrative action is settled but the

staff may be negotiating a recall or civil

penalty. Similarly, the proposed rule is

intended to cover regulatory matters or

any other activities between attorneys

on the one hand and a Commissioner or

Commission staff acting in their official

capacities on the other hand.2

Actual contact with a Commissioner

or the Commission staff is not required

for an attorney to be sanctioned for

prohibited conduct. For example, under

the proposed rule, an attorney who

knowingly destroys documents that are

relevant to a staff investigation on a

particular product would be subject to

sanction by the Commission.

Procedures

The new rule includes procedures for

addressing allegations of prohibited

conduct by attorneys. Under the

proposal, all allegations would be dealt

with during a (potentially) three-stage

procedure.

First Stage

During the first stage, the staff refers

an allegation to the General Counsel

who would have discretion to determine

how it should be dealt with. The

General Counsel could review the

allegation and then (i) decide to close

the matter, (ii) conduct an informal

investigation and decide to close the

matter or (iii) conduct an informal

investigation and issue a show cause

order to the attorney.

The General Counsel may decide,

based on a review of the allegation, that

an informal investigation is

unnecessary. For this reason, the

General Counsel has discretion to close

the matter without any further action. In

addition, if the matter is closed without

investigation, the General Counsel has

discretion to notify or not notify the

attorney of the allegation. For example,

if the allegation is frivolous and the

attorney is unaware of it, the General

Counsel may decide to close it without

even informing the attorney that the

allegation was made. The General

Counsel’s decision to close the matter in

this instance is final and nonreviewable.

The proposed regulation also permits

the General Counsel to conduct an

informal investigation during the first

stage (without compiling a record) to

determine if a more formal proceeding

against the attorney is warranted. An

informal investigation may include

contact between the General Counsel

and the CPSC staff, the attorney, counsel

for the attorney, or anyone else who has

information concerning the allegation. If

the General Counsel closes the matter

after an such an investigation, he or she

must notify the attorney. The General

Counsel’s decision to close the matter is

final and nonreviewable.

If the General Counsel determines,

after conducting an informal

investigation, that a further proceeding

is necessary, a show cause order will be

issued to the attorney. Although the

General Counsel may close the matter

without conducting an informal

investigation, as noted above, the

proposed regulation requires the

General Counsel, as a matter of fairness,

to conduct such an investigation before

issuing a show cause order.

Second Stage

If the General Counsel does issue a

show cause order to the attorney, the

second stage of the proceeding begins.

The attorney receives notice of the right

to make written submissions and/or oral

presentations about the allegation and

notice of the right to counsel. The

responsibility for investigating the

allegation is with the General Counsel.

No discovery will be permitted. An oral

presentation shall be held if requested

by the attorney. All oral presentations

will be transcribed.

The General Counsel will determine

the number and identity of witnesses,

the length of testimony, and the

admissibility and number of exhibits.

At the conclusion of the second stage,

the General Counsel will make a

determination, based on all the

information, whether to forward a

recommendation for sanction to the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66517

Commission. If the General Counsel

determines not to forward a sanction

recommendation to the Commission, the

matter is closed and nonreviewable and

the General Counsel will inform the

attorney and the Executive Director in

writing.

Third Stage

If the General Counsel recommends a

sanction, he or she will forward the

record to the Commission. Under the

proposed regulation, the record consists

of all information submitted by the

parties during the second stage

including at the oral presentation, as

well as transcripts of the oral

presentation, any exhibits and the

sanction recommendation. The

Commission reviews the record and

either imposes a sanction or closes the

matter. The Commission may impose

one of the listed sanctions or any other

sanction deemed appropriate. For

example, the Commission may decide

that an attorney’s conduct does not

warrant public censure, but some other

lesser sanction.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), when an agency issues a

proposed rule it generally must prepare

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

describing the impact the proposed rule

is expected to have on small entities. 5

U.S.C. 603. The RFA does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis if the head

of the agency certifies that the rule will

not have a significant effect on a

substantial number of small business

entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Because the

proposed regulation governs only

attorney conduct, the Commission

certifies that it will not have a

significant effect on a substantial

number of small entities.

Environmental Considerations

Pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act, and in

accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations and

CPSC procedures for environmental

review, the Commission has assessed

the possible environmental effects

associated with the proposed rule for

outside attorneys. Because this

proposed rule would have no adverse

effect on the environment, neither an

environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is

required.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1026

Administrative practice and

procedure, Attorneys.

Accordingly, 16 CFR Part 1026 is

added to read as follows:

PART 1026—RULES AND

REGULATIONS

Sec.

1026.1 Purpose and scope.

1026.2 Definitions.

1026.3 Prohibited conduct.

1026.4 Procedure.

1026.5 Sanctions.

1026.6 Information disclosure.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2051–2084, 1261–

1278, 1191–1204, 1471–1476, 1211–1214.

§ 1026.1 Purpose and Scope.

The behavior of attorneys who

represent clients in Commission

adjudicative proceedings is governed by

16 CFR part 1025; see 16 CFR 1025.66.

This part 1026 governs the behavior of

attorneys in any matter before the

Commission other than an adjudicative

proceeding.

§ 1026.2 Definitions.

For purposes of this part only:

(a) CPSC staff means any

Commissioner or employee of the

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Because the Commissioners may have

direct and individual contacts with

attorneys, they are included in the

definition of CPSC staff in this part.

This definition does not alter or affect

any other law or regulation.

(b) Attorney means any attorney at

law who is admitted to practice before

the highest court of any State or the

District of Columbia.

(c) Matter before the Commission

means any activity where the CPSC staff

is acting in its official capacity.

§ 1026.3. Prohibited conduct.

On a matter before the Commission,

no attorney may act in a manner

prohibited by the state or District of

Columbia bar disciplinary rules

applicable to the attorney or otherwise

in bad faith. Such action constitutes

‘‘prohibited conduct.’’

§ 1026.4 Procedure.

The following three-stage procedure

will be used to determine whether an

attorney has engaged in prohibited

conduct:

(a)(1) The first stage begins when

CPSC staff refers an allegation of

prohibited conduct to the General

Counsel, with notice to the

Commission’s Executive Director. The

General Counsel may summarily close

the matter of alleged prohibited conduct

without conducting an informal

investigation. If so, the General Counsel

will inform the Executive Director, but

has the discretion to inform or not

inform the attorney.

(2) If the General Counsel does not

summarily close the matter, the General

Counsel will conduct an informal

investigation, after informing the

attorney of the allegation and of his or

her right to counsel.

(i) The informal investigation may

include contact between the General

Counsel and the CPSC staff, the

attorney, counsel for the attorney, or

anyone else who has information

concerning the allegation.

(ii) Information gathered during this

informal investigation stage will not be

made part of the record of the

proceeding, unless it is reintroduced

during the second stage.

(3) Following the informal

investigation, the General Counsel will

review all available information and

decide whether to issue an order

requiring the attorney to show cause

why he or she should not be sanctioned

or close the matter. If the General

Counsel closes the matter, the General

Counsel will inform the attorney and

the Executive Director in writing of that

decision.

(b)(1) The second stage begins when

the General Counsel issues a show cause

order to the attorney. The order will

provide a copy of the allegation and

inform the attorney of his or her right

to respond in writing and/or orally to

the allegation. The General Counsel will

send copies of the show cause order to

the Executive Director and to the CPSC

staff who referred the allegation. The

General Counsel will establish a

tentative date for oral presentations, in

consultation with the attorney and

CPSC staff, and a subsequent deadline

for written submissions.

(2) During the second stage:

(i) No discovery is permitted.

(ii) The attorney may be represented

by counsel.

(iii) An oral presentation shall be

held, if requested by the attorney. Any

oral presentations will be transcribed.

(iv) The General Counsel has the

authority to make a determination with

respect to any issue related to the oral

presentation not addressed by this part

including the number and identity of

witnesses, the length of testimony and

the 11 admissibility and number of

exhibits at any presentation.

(v) Witnesses at the oral presentation

may include the attorney, the CPSC

staff, or any other person with

information about the allegation. If a

witness refuses to appear voluntarily,

the General Counsel may ask the

Commission to issue a subpoena under

15 U.S.C. 2076(b)(3). The attorney may

ask the General Counsel to ask the

Commission to issue subpoenas to

witnesses.

(3) The General Counsel will review

the information in the written

66518 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

submissions and oral presentations (if

any), and then decide whether to

forward a recommendation for sanction

to the Commission. If the General

Counsel decides not to forward a

written sanction recommendation, the

matter is closed, and the General

Counsel will inform the attorney and

the Executive Director in writing.

(4) The General Counsel’s decision to

close the matter during the first or

second stage is final and nonreviewable.

(c)(1) The third stage begins when the

General Counsel forwards the record to

the Commission. The record will consist

of the complaint, all information

submitted in writing during the second

stage or at the oral presentation,

exhibits, the transcript of any oral

presentation, and the General Counsel’s

written sanction recommendation. The

Commission will review the record and

decide to impose a sanction or close the

matter. The Secretary of the

Commission will inform the attorney

and the Executive Director in writing of

the decision.

(2) At the beginning of the third stage,

the General Counsel will designate a

lawyer employed by the Commission

and not involved in the matter to advise

the Commission.

(3) The Executive Director and the

General Counsel may designate

someone employed by the Commission

to act for them at any stage under this

procedure.

§ 1026.5 Sanctions.

(a) The following are possible

sanctions against an attorney for

prohibited conduct:

(1) Censure. Issue a public censure to

the attorney that describes the

misconduct.

(2) Suspension. Suspend the attorney,

for a designated period of time, from

participation in any matter before the

Commission.

(3) Permanent Exclusion. Permanently

bar the attorney from participation in

any matter before the Commission.

(4) Other. Any sanction deemed

appropriate by the Commission.

(b) If any sanction is imposed, the

General Counsel will notify all state and

District of Columbia bars before which

the attorney is admitted to practice.

§ 1026.6 Information disclosure.

Information disclosure under this

section is governed by the provisions of

the Freedom of Information Act and 16

CFR Part 1015.

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–28202 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 905]

RIN 1512–AA07

Long Island Viticultural Area

(2000R–170P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is

considering the establishment of a

viticultural area to be known as ‘‘Long

Island,’’ located in Nassau and Suffolk

counties, New York. This viticultural

area encompasses the two existing

appellations, ‘‘The Hamptons’’ and

‘‘North Fork of Long Island,’’ as well as

the addition of the remaining areas of

Nassau and Suffolk counties. This

proposal is the result of a petition filed

by Richard Olsen-Harbich on behalf of

Raphael Winery and the Petrocelli

Family, as well as Karen Meredith of

Broadfields. Mr. Olsen-Harbich believes

that the region he refers to as ‘‘Long

Island’’ possesses viticultural conditions

which are distinguishable from the rest

of New York State and the bordering

areas of New Jersey and Connecticut.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by January 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O.

Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091–

0221, (Attention: Notice No. 905). See

‘‘Public Participation’’ section of this

notice if you want to comment by

facsimile or e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20226 (202–927–9347).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background on Viticultural Areas

What Is ATF’s Authority To Establish a

Viticultural Area?

ATF published Treasury Decision

ATF–53 (43 FR 37672, 54624) on

August 23, 1978. This decision revised

the regulations in 27 CFR part 4,

Labeling and Advertising of Wine, to

allow the establishment of definitive

viticultural areas. The regulations allow

the name of an approved viticultural

area to be used as an appellation of

origin in the labeling and advertising of

wine.

On October 2, 1979, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–60 (44 FR

56692), which added a new part 9 to 27

CFR, American Viticultural Areas, for

providing the listing of approved

American viticultural areas, the names

of which may be used as appellations of

origin.

What Is the Definition of an American

Viticultural Area?

Section 4.25a(e)(1), title 27, CFR,

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographical

features. Viticultural features such as

soil, climate, elevation, topography, etc.,

distinguish it from surrounding areas.

What Is Required to Establish a

Viticultural Area?

Any interested person may petition

ATF to establish a grape-growing region

as a viticultural area. The petition

should include:

• Evidence that the name of the

proposed viticultural area is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the area specified in the petition;

• Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area

are as specified in the petition;

• Evidence relating to the

geographical features (climate, soil,

elevation, physical features, etc.) which

distinguish the viticultural features of

the proposed area from surrounding

areas;

• A description of the specific

boundaries of the viticultural area,

based on features which can be found

on United States Geological Survey

(U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable

scale; and

• A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S.

map(s) with the boundaries prominently

marked.

2. Long Island Petition

ATF has received a petition from

Richard Olsen-Harbich on behalf of

Raphael Winery, the Petrocelli Family,

and Karen Meredith of Broadfields,

proposing to establish a viticultural area

in Nassau and Suffolk counties, New

York, to be known as ‘‘Long Island.’’

This proposed viticultural area

encompasses the two existing

appellations, ‘‘The Hamptons, Long

Island’’ and ‘‘North Fork of Long