Proposed Red Hill Douglas County, OR Viticultural Area (2001R-88P), 5397-5399 [05-1874]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
section 26 eastern boundary line, T23N,
R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then
(12) Proceed straight west-southwest
1.9 miles to the 2,183-foot peak in the
northwest quadrant of section 34, T23N,
R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then
(13) Proceed straight south-southeast
1.2 miles to the 1,953-foot peak in the
northeast quadrant of section 3, T22N,
R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then
(14) Proceed straight southerly 0.9
mile to the 2,012-foot peak in the
northeast quadrant of section 10, T22N,
R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then
(15) Proceed straight south-southeast
1.4 miles along Dingman Ridge to the
2,228-foot peak along the section 14 and
15 boundary line, T22N, R12W, Covelo
East Quadrangle; then
(16) Proceed straight southeast 0.95
mile to the 2,398-foot peak in the
northeast quadrant of section 23, T22N,
R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then
(17) Proceed straight south-southeast
1.75 miles to the 2,474-foot elevation
point along the section 25 and 26
boundary line, T22N, R12W, Jamison
Ridge Quadrangle; then
(18) Proceed straight west-southwest
0.9 mile to BM 2217 in the southwest
quadrant of section 26, and continue
straight westerly 1.5 miles to the 2,230foot peak northwest of Iron Spring, in
the southeast quadrant of section 28,
T22N, R12W, Jamison Ridge
Quadrangle; then
(19) Proceed straight southwest 0.65
mile to the 2,022-foot peak along the
unimproved road in section 33, T22N,
R12W, Jamison Ridge Quadrangle; then
(20) Proceed straight west-northwest
1.5 miles to the 1,762-foot peak in the
northeast quadrant of section 31, and
continue in the same line of direction
1.1 miles to the beginning point at the
intersection of State Highway 162 and
the section 25 and 36 boundary line,
T22N, R13W (labeled Inspiration Point),
on the Dos Rios Quadrangle map.
Signed: January 25, 2005.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–1875 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
11:04 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Notice No. 31; Re: ATF Notice Nos. 960
and 966; TTB Notice No. 6]
RIN: 1513–AA39
Proposed Red Hill Douglas County, OR
Viticultural Area (2001R–88P)
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau reopens the comment
period for Notice No. 960, a notice of
proposed rulemaking published in the
Federal Register to add ‘‘Red Hill
(Oregon)’’ as an approved American
viticultural area. We are re-opening the
comment period for 30 days to solicit
comments on a new proposed name,
‘‘Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon.’’
The petitioner suggested the new name
because the originally proposed name
could be confused with similar names of
other geographical areas and with brand
names used on wines from those other
areas.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 4, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments to
any of the following addresses:
• Chief, Regulations and Procedures
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 31, P.O.
Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044–
4412.
• 202–927–8525 (facsimile).
• nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail).
• https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/
index.htm. An online comment form is
posted with this notice on our Web site.
• https://www.regulations.gov (Federal
e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions
for submitting comments).
You may view copies of this notice,
the original petition, the appropriate
maps, and any comments we receive
about this notice by appointment at the
TTB Library, 1310 G Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220. To make an
appointment, call (202) 927–2400. You
may also access copies of this notice
and comments online at https://
www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Sutton, Regulations and
Procedures Division, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925
Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma,
California 94952; telephone (415) 271–
1254.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5397
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 30, 2002, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the
predecessor agency to the Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB),
published in the Federal Register as
Notice No. 960 (67 FR 66079) a notice
of proposed rulemaking regarding the
establishment of the Red Hill (Oregon)
viticultural area. The notice requested
comments by December 30, 2002, from
all interested persons.
Notice No. 960 included a discussion
of the name evidence for Red Hill. As
noted in Notice No. 960, the Red Hill
name has been used in Douglas County,
Oregon, for over 100 years. Historically,
the Applegate and the Scott families
settled at the foot of Red Hill in the mid19th century. By 1879, settlers
established a school district in the Red
Hill area, and built a schoolhouse on
Red Hill Road (identified in the
southeast corner of the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Drain,
Oregon, map in section 26, T23S/R5W.
The school district operated until 1943
when it merged with the Pleasant Valley
District. ‘‘Douglas County Schools, A
History Outline,’’ by Larry Moulton,
October 2000, includes a hand-drawn
map and directions to the ‘‘Red Hill
School Site.’’ The Red Hill School now
stands abandoned.
The USGS Drain, Oregon, map labels
‘‘Red Hill’’ in sections 35, 26 and 23,
T23S/R5W. The map also identifies a
light duty road meandering through the
region as ‘‘Red Hill Road.’’ Interstate 5
signage at exit number 150 in northern
Douglas County, Oregon, includes the
‘‘Red Hill’’ name and directional
information to the area. The USGS
Geographical Names Information
System identifies ‘‘Red Hill’’ as an area
in Douglas County, Oregon. Douglas
County is located in southwest Oregon,
as noted the Oregon-Washington
American Automobile Association State
Series map, published February 2003,
and on page 92, ‘‘Oregon,’’ of the
American Map 2002 Road Atlas.
After publication of Notice No. 960,
TTB twice re-opened the comment
period for additional public comments
on the entire petition. Notice No. 966
(68 FR 2262), published on January 16,
2003, requested comments by March 17,
2003. TTB Notice No. 6 (68 FR 20090),
published on April 24, 2003, requested
comments by May 27, 2004.
In response to these notices, TTB
received a total of 32 comments, with 16
supporting and 12 opposing the
petition, 1 requesting an extension of
the comment period, and 3 requesting a
public hearing.
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
5398
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Supporting commenters focused on
the distinctive features of the proposed
area and the locally known Red Hill
name. Opposing commenters expressed
concern about the potential name
confusion with other geographical areas,
the similarity of the proposed name to
other wine brand names, and the
geographical and climatic evidence
submitted for the proposed area.
After reviewing the comments, TTB
suggested that the petitioner provide an
alternative name for the proposed
viticultural area because its originally
proposed name could be confused with
similar names of other geographical
areas and with brand names used on
wines from those other areas. The
petitioner, after some consideration,
withdrew the original ‘‘Red Hill
(Oregon)’’ name and proposed in its
place the name ‘‘Red Hill Douglas
County, Oregon.’’ TTB believes the Red
Hill Douglas County, Oregon name is
appropriate for the area and will not
create any confusion with other
geographical areas or wine brand names
that contain the words ‘‘Red Hill.’’
Accordingly, we are reopening the
comment period for Notice No. 960 for
the specific purpose of eliciting
comments on the new name for the
proposed viticultural area. We are also
modifying the proposed part 9
regulatory text by adding a second
sentence to paragraph (a) to define the
viticultural significance of the new
proposed name. We explain the impact
of the adoption of this viticultural area
name and its relevance to this comment
solicitation in more detail below.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits
any label reference on a wine that
indicates or implies an origin other than
the wine’s true place of origin. If we
establish this proposed viticultural area,
its name, ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County,
Oregon,’’ will be recognized as a name
of viticultural significance.
Consequently, wine bottlers using ‘‘Red
Hill Douglas County, Oregon’’ in a
brand name, including a trademark, or
in another label reference as to the
origin of the wine, will have to ensure
that the product is eligible to use the
viticultural area’s name as an
appellation of origin. On the other hand,
we do not believe that any single part
of the proposed viticultural name
standing alone, such as ‘‘Red Hill,’’
would have viticultural significance if
the new area is established.
Accordingly, the proposed part 9
regulatory text set forth in this
document specifies only the full ‘‘Red
Hill Douglas County, Oregon’’ name as
a term of viticultural significance for
VerDate jul<14>2003
11:04 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
purposes of part 4 of the TTB
regulations.
For a wine to be eligible to use as an
appellation of origin the name of a
viticultural area specified in part 9 of
the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent
of the grapes used to make the wine
must have been grown within the area
represented by that name. If the wine is
not eligible to use the viticultural area
name as an appellation of origin and
that name appears in the brand name,
then the label is not in compliance and
the bottler must change the brand name
and obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the viticultural area name
appears in another reference on the
label in a misleading manner, the bottler
would have to obtain approval of a new
label. Accordingly, if a new label or a
previously approved label uses the
name ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County,
Oregon’’ for a wine that does not meet
the 85 percent standard, the new label
will not be approved, and the
previously approved label will be
subject to revocation, upon the effective
date of the approval of the Red Hill
Douglas County, Oregon viticultural
area.
Different rules apply if a wine has a
brand name containing a viticultural
area name that was used as a brand
name on a label approved before July 7,
1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Changes to Proposed Boundary
Description
In addition to the name change
discussed above, the proposed
regulatory text set forth in this notice
includes a redraft of the boundary
description for the petitioned-for
viticultural area. We took this action to
ensure ease of understanding and to
describe the boundary line in a
clockwise rotation. The redrafted
description makes no change to the
location of the boundary as set forth in
Notice No. 960.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
We invite comments from interested
members of the public on the new
proposed ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County,
Oregon’’ viticultural area name and on
the redrafted boundary description.
Please provide any available specific
information in support of your
comments. We will not consider
comments on other aspects of Notice
No. 960 that are not addresses in this
notice.
Because of the potential impact of the
establishment of the proposed Red Hill
Douglas County, Oregon viticultural
area on brand labels that include the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
words ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County,
Oregon’’ as discussed above under
‘‘Impact on Current Wine Labels,’’ we
are particularly interested in comments
regarding whether there will be a
conflict between the proposed area
name and currently used brand names.
If a commenter believes that a conflict
will arise, the comment should describe
the nature of that conflict, including any
negative economic impact that approval
of the proposed viticultural area will
have on an existing viticultural
enterprise. We are also interested in
receiving suggestions for ways to avoid
any conflicts, for example by adopting
a modified or different name for the
viticultural area.
Although TTB believes that only the
full name ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County,
Oregon’’ should be considered to have
viticultural significance upon
establishment of the proposed new
viticultural area, we also invite
comments from those who believe that
other parts of the name, standing alone,
would have viticultural significance
upon establishment of the area.
Comments in this regard should include
documentation or other information
supporting the conclusion that use of a
part of the name, standing alone, on a
wine label could cause consumers and
vintners to attribute to the wine in
question the quality, reputation, or other
characteristic of wine made from grapes
grown in the proposed Red Hill Douglas
County, Oregon viticultural area.
Confidentiality
All submitted material is part of the
public record and subject to disclosure.
Do not enclose any material in your
comments that you consider
confidential or inappropriate for public
disclosure.
Submitting Comments
Please submit your comments by the
closing date shown above in this notice.
All comments must include this notice
number and your name and mailing
address. Your comment must be legible
and written in language acceptable for
public disclosure. We do not
acknowledge receipt of comments, and
we consider all comments as originals.
You may submit comments in one of
five ways:
• Mail: You may send written
comments to TTB at the address listed
in the ADDRESSES section.
• Facsimile: You may submit
comments by facsimile transmission to
202–927–8525. Faxed comments must—
(1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2) Contain a legible, written
signature; and
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(3) Be no more than five pages long.
This limitation assures electronic access
to our equipment. We will not accept
faxed comments that exceed five pages.
• E-mail: You may e-mail comments
to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments transmitted
by electronic mail must—
(1) Contain your e-mail address;
(2) Reference this notice number on
the subject line; and
(3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by
11-inch paper.
• Online form: We provide a
comment form with the online copy of
this notice on our Web site at https://
www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.
Select the ‘‘Send comments via e-mail’’
link under this notice number.
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To
submit comments to us via the Federal
e-rulemaking portal, visit https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Public Disclosure
You may view copies of this notice,
the petition, the appropriate maps, and
any comments we receive by
appointment at the TTB Library at 1310
G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
You may also obtain copies at 20 cents
per 8.5- by 11-inch page. Contact our
librarian at the above address or
telephone 202–927–2400 to schedule an
appointment or to request copies of
comments.
For your convenience, we will post
this notice and any comments we
receive on the TTB Web site. We may
omit voluminous attachments or
material that we consider unsuitable for
posting. In all cases, the full comment
will be available in the TTB Library. To
access the online copy of this notice,
visit https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/
index.htm. Select the ‘‘View
Comments’’ link under this notice
number to view the posted comments.
Drafting Information
Nancy Sutton of the Regulations and
Procedures Division, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted
this notice.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
Notice No. 960 was issued under the
authority of 27 U.S.C. 205. For the
reasons discussed in the preambles of
Notice No. 960 and this notice, we
propose to amend title 27, chapter I,
part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
VerDate jul<14>2003
11:04 Feb 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Subpart C is amended by adding
§ 9.175 to read as follows:
§ 9.175
Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is ‘‘Red
Hill Douglas County, Oregon’’. For
purposes of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Red
Hill Douglas County, Oregon’’ is a term
of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate
maps for determining the boundary of
the Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon
viticultural area are three United States
Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000
scale topographic maps. They are:
(1) Sutherlin, OR (Provisional Edition
1988);
(2) Scotts Valley, OR (Provisional
Edition 1987); and
(3) Yoncalla, OR (Provisional Edition
1987).
(c) Boundary. The Red Hill Douglas
County, Oregon viticultural area is
located in Douglas County, Oregon, east
of Interstate 5 near the hamlet of Rice
Hill, between the villages of Yoncalla
and Oakland.
(1) Beginning on the Yoncalla map
along the southern boundary of section
35, T23S/R5W, at the point where a
pipeline crosses the T23S/T24S
township line, proceed due west 0.8
mile along the T23S/24S township line
to its intersection with the 800-foot
contour line just west of Pollock Creek
in section 34, T23S/R5W (Yoncalla
Quadrangle); then
(2) Proceed southerly along the
meandering 800-foot contour line, cross
onto the Sutherlin map in section 10,
T24S/R5W, and continue westerly along
the 800-foot contour line to its first
intersection with the eastern boundary
of section 8, T24S/R5W (Sutherlin
Quadrangle); then
(3) Proceed northerly along the
meandering 800-foot contour line,
return to the Yoncalla map in section 9,
T23S/R5W, and continue northerly
along the 800-foot contour line to its
intersection with the T23S/T24S
township line very near the northwest
corner of section 4, T24S/R5W
(Yoncalla Quadrangle); then
(4) Proceed northeasterly along the
800-foot contour line, cross Wilson
Creek in the northern portion of section
23, T23S/R5W, pass onto the Scotts
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5399
Valley map in section 14, T23S/R5W,
and continue northeasterly along the
800-foot contour line to its intersection
with the R4W/R5W range line, which at
that point is also the eastern boundary
of section 1, T23S/R5W (Scotts Valley
Quadrangle); then
(5) Proceed southwesterly along the
800-foot contour line, re-cross the R4W/
R5W range line, and continue to the
second intersection of the 800-foot
contour line and the pipeline in section
1, T23S/R5W, (Scotts Valley
Quadrangle); then
(6) Proceed 5.75 miles southwesterly
along the pipeline, cross Wilson Creek
in section 24, T23S/R5W, return to the
Yoncalla map in section 26, T23S/R5W,
and continue southwesterly along the
pipeline to the point of beginning at the
intersection of the pipeline and the
T23S/T24S township line in section 35,
T23S/R5W (Yoncalla Quadrangle).
Signed: January 26, 2005.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–1874 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R07–OAR–2004–MO–0005; FRL–7867–3]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Missouri for the purpose of establishing
vapor line requirements necessary to
achieve Stage I vapor recovery air
quality benefits in Clay, Jackson, and
Platte counties in Missouri.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action must be received in writing by
March 4, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/
courier; please follow the detailed
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of
the direct final rule which is located in
the rules section of this Federal
Register.
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5397-5399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1874]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Notice No. 31; Re: ATF Notice Nos. 960 and 966; TTB Notice No. 6]
RIN: 1513-AA39
Proposed Red Hill Douglas County, OR Viticultural Area (2001R-
88P)
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau reopens the
comment period for Notice No. 960, a notice of proposed rulemaking
published in the Federal Register to add ``Red Hill (Oregon)'' as an
approved American viticultural area. We are re-opening the comment
period for 30 days to solicit comments on a new proposed name, ``Red
Hill Douglas County, Oregon.'' The petitioner suggested the new name
because the originally proposed name could be confused with similar
names of other geographical areas and with brand names used on wines
from those other areas.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 4, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses:
Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 31, P.O. Box 14412,
Washington, DC 20044-4412.
202-927-8525 (facsimile).
nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail).
https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. An online
comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site.
https://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking portal;
follow instructions for submitting comments).
You may view copies of this notice, the original petition, the
appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this notice by
appointment at the TTB Library, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC
20220. To make an appointment, call (202) 927-2400. You may also access
copies of this notice and comments online at https://www.ttb.gov/
alcohol/rules/index.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Sutton, Regulations and
Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925
Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone (415)
271-1254.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 30, 2002, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
the predecessor agency to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB), published in the Federal Register as Notice No. 960 (67 FR
66079) a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the establishment of
the Red Hill (Oregon) viticultural area. The notice requested comments
by December 30, 2002, from all interested persons.
Notice No. 960 included a discussion of the name evidence for Red
Hill. As noted in Notice No. 960, the Red Hill name has been used in
Douglas County, Oregon, for over 100 years. Historically, the Applegate
and the Scott families settled at the foot of Red Hill in the mid-19th
century. By 1879, settlers established a school district in the Red
Hill area, and built a schoolhouse on Red Hill Road (identified in the
southeast corner of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Drain,
Oregon, map in section 26, T23S/R5W. The school district operated until
1943 when it merged with the Pleasant Valley District. ``Douglas County
Schools, A History Outline,'' by Larry Moulton, October 2000, includes
a hand-drawn map and directions to the ``Red Hill School Site.'' The
Red Hill School now stands abandoned.
The USGS Drain, Oregon, map labels ``Red Hill'' in sections 35, 26
and 23, T23S/R5W. The map also identifies a light duty road meandering
through the region as ``Red Hill Road.'' Interstate 5 signage at exit
number 150 in northern Douglas County, Oregon, includes the ``Red
Hill'' name and directional information to the area. The USGS
Geographical Names Information System identifies ``Red Hill'' as an
area in Douglas County, Oregon. Douglas County is located in southwest
Oregon, as noted the Oregon-Washington American Automobile Association
State Series map, published February 2003, and on page 92, ``Oregon,''
of the American Map 2002 Road Atlas.
After publication of Notice No. 960, TTB twice re-opened the
comment period for additional public comments on the entire petition.
Notice No. 966 (68 FR 2262), published on January 16, 2003, requested
comments by March 17, 2003. TTB Notice No. 6 (68 FR 20090), published
on April 24, 2003, requested comments by May 27, 2004.
In response to these notices, TTB received a total of 32 comments,
with 16 supporting and 12 opposing the petition, 1 requesting an
extension of the comment period, and 3 requesting a public hearing.
[[Page 5398]]
Supporting commenters focused on the distinctive features of the
proposed area and the locally known Red Hill name. Opposing commenters
expressed concern about the potential name confusion with other
geographical areas, the similarity of the proposed name to other wine
brand names, and the geographical and climatic evidence submitted for
the proposed area.
After reviewing the comments, TTB suggested that the petitioner
provide an alternative name for the proposed viticultural area because
its originally proposed name could be confused with similar names of
other geographical areas and with brand names used on wines from those
other areas. The petitioner, after some consideration, withdrew the
original ``Red Hill (Oregon)'' name and proposed in its place the name
``Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon.'' TTB believes the Red Hill Douglas
County, Oregon name is appropriate for the area and will not create any
confusion with other geographical areas or wine brand names that
contain the words ``Red Hill.''
Accordingly, we are reopening the comment period for Notice No. 960
for the specific purpose of eliciting comments on the new name for the
proposed viticultural area. We are also modifying the proposed part 9
regulatory text by adding a second sentence to paragraph (a) to define
the viticultural significance of the new proposed name. We explain the
impact of the adoption of this viticultural area name and its relevance
to this comment solicitation in more detail below.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. If we establish this proposed viticultural area, its
name, ``Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon,'' will be recognized as a name
of viticultural significance. Consequently, wine bottlers using ``Red
Hill Douglas County, Oregon'' in a brand name, including a trademark,
or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have
to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's
name as an appellation of origin. On the other hand, we do not believe
that any single part of the proposed viticultural name standing alone,
such as ``Red Hill,'' would have viticultural significance if the new
area is established. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text
set forth in this document specifies only the full ``Red Hill Douglas
County, Oregon'' name as a term of viticultural significance for
purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations.
For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the
name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations,
at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been
grown within the area represented by that name. If the wine is not
eligible to use the viticultural area name as an appellation of origin
and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name
appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the
bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Accordingly, if a
new label or a previously approved label uses the name ``Red Hill
Douglas County, Oregon'' for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent
standard, the new label will not be approved, and the previously
approved label will be subject to revocation, upon the effective date
of the approval of the Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon viticultural
area.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a
viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label
approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Changes to Proposed Boundary Description
In addition to the name change discussed above, the proposed
regulatory text set forth in this notice includes a redraft of the
boundary description for the petitioned-for viticultural area. We took
this action to ensure ease of understanding and to describe the
boundary line in a clockwise rotation. The redrafted description makes
no change to the location of the boundary as set forth in Notice No.
960.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
We invite comments from interested members of the public on the new
proposed ``Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon'' viticultural area name and
on the redrafted boundary description. Please provide any available
specific information in support of your comments. We will not consider
comments on other aspects of Notice No. 960 that are not addresses in
this notice.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon viticultural area on brand
labels that include the words ``Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon'' as
discussed above under ``Impact on Current Wine Labels,'' we are
particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a
conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names.
If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should
describe the nature of that conflict, including any negative economic
impact that approval of the proposed viticultural area will have on an
existing viticultural enterprise. We are also interested in receiving
suggestions for ways to avoid any conflicts, for example by adopting a
modified or different name for the viticultural area.
Although TTB believes that only the full name ``Red Hill Douglas
County, Oregon'' should be considered to have viticultural significance
upon establishment of the proposed new viticultural area, we also
invite comments from those who believe that other parts of the name,
standing alone, would have viticultural significance upon establishment
of the area. Comments in this regard should include documentation or
other information supporting the conclusion that use of a part of the
name, standing alone, on a wine label could cause consumers and
vintners to attribute to the wine in question the quality, reputation,
or other characteristic of wine made from grapes grown in the proposed
Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon viticultural area.
Confidentiality
All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to
disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you
consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Submitting Comments
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
notice. All comments must include this notice number and your name and
mailing address. Your comment must be legible and written in language
acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of
comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit
comments in one of five ways:
Mail: You may send written comments to TTB at the address
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile
transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must--
(1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2) Contain a legible, written signature; and
[[Page 5399]]
(3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures
electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments
that exceed five pages.
E-mail: You may e-mail comments to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments
transmitted by electronic mail must--
(1) Contain your e-mail address;
(2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
(3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper.
Online form: We provide a comment form with the online
copy of this notice on our Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/
rules/index.htm. Select the ``Send comments via e-mail'' link under
this notice number.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To submit comments to us via
the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit https://www.regulations.gov and
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Public Disclosure
You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate
maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Library at
1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at
20 cents per 8.5- by 11-inch page. Contact our librarian at the above
address or telephone 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to
request copies of comments.
For your convenience, we will post this notice and any comments we
receive on the TTB Web site. We may omit voluminous attachments or
material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the
full comment will be available in the TTB Library. To access the online
copy of this notice, visit https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.
Select the ``View Comments'' link under this notice number to view the
posted comments.
Drafting Information
Nancy Sutton of the Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this notice.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
Notice No. 960 was issued under the authority of 27 U.S.C. 205. For
the reasons discussed in the preambles of Notice No. 960 and this
notice, we propose to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.175 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.175 Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon''. For purposes of part 4
of this chapter, ``Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon'' is a term of
viticultural significance.
(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate maps for determining the
boundary of the Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon viticultural area are
three United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic
maps. They are:
(1) Sutherlin, OR (Provisional Edition 1988);
(2) Scotts Valley, OR (Provisional Edition 1987); and
(3) Yoncalla, OR (Provisional Edition 1987).
(c) Boundary. The Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon viticultural area
is located in Douglas County, Oregon, east of Interstate 5 near the
hamlet of Rice Hill, between the villages of Yoncalla and Oakland.
(1) Beginning on the Yoncalla map along the southern boundary of
section 35, T23S/R5W, at the point where a pipeline crosses the T23S/
T24S township line, proceed due west 0.8 mile along the T23S/24S
township line to its intersection with the 800-foot contour line just
west of Pollock Creek in section 34, T23S/R5W (Yoncalla Quadrangle);
then
(2) Proceed southerly along the meandering 800-foot contour line,
cross onto the Sutherlin map in section 10, T24S/R5W, and continue
westerly along the 800-foot contour line to its first intersection with
the eastern boundary of section 8, T24S/R5W (Sutherlin Quadrangle);
then
(3) Proceed northerly along the meandering 800-foot contour line,
return to the Yoncalla map in section 9, T23S/R5W, and continue
northerly along the 800-foot contour line to its intersection with the
T23S/T24S township line very near the northwest corner of section 4,
T24S/R5W (Yoncalla Quadrangle); then
(4) Proceed northeasterly along the 800-foot contour line, cross
Wilson Creek in the northern portion of section 23, T23S/R5W, pass onto
the Scotts Valley map in section 14, T23S/R5W, and continue
northeasterly along the 800-foot contour line to its intersection with
the R4W/R5W range line, which at that point is also the eastern
boundary of section 1, T23S/R5W (Scotts Valley Quadrangle); then
(5) Proceed southwesterly along the 800-foot contour line, re-cross
the R4W/R5W range line, and continue to the second intersection of the
800-foot contour line and the pipeline in section 1, T23S/R5W, (Scotts
Valley Quadrangle); then
(6) Proceed 5.75 miles southwesterly along the pipeline, cross
Wilson Creek in section 24, T23S/R5W, return to the Yoncalla map in
section 26, T23S/R5W, and continue southwesterly along the pipeline to
the point of beginning at the intersection of the pipeline and the
T23S/T24S township line in section 35, T23S/R5W (Yoncalla Quadrangle).
Signed: January 26, 2005.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-1874 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P