Establishment of the San Antonio Valley Viticultural Area (2004R-599P), 33239-33243 [E6-8854]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
request for an extension beyond the
maximum duration of the initial 12month program must be submitted
electronically in the Department of
Homeland Security’s Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS). Supporting documentation
must be submitted to the Department on
the sponsor’s organizational letterhead
and contain the following information:
(1) Au pair’s name, SEVIS
identification number, date of birth, the
length of the extension period being
requested;
(2) Verification that the au pair
completed the educational requirements
of the initial program; and
(3) Payment of the required nonrefundable fee (see 22 CFR 62.90) via
Pay.gov.
(p) Repeat Participation. Exchange
visitors who have participated in the Au
Pair Program are not eligible for repeat
participation.
Dated: June 2, 2006.
Stanley S. Colvin,
Director, Office of Exchange Coordination
and Designation, Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E6–8958 Filed 6–7–06; 8:45 am]
Background
Background on Viticultural Areas
The final regulations (TD 9254) that
are the subject of this correction are
under section 1502 of the Internal
Revenue Code.
TTB Authority
Need for Correction
As published, final regulations (TD
9254) contains an error that may prove
to be misleading and is in need of
clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the final regulations (TD
9254) which was the subject of FR Doc.
06–2411, is corrected as follows:
On page 13009, column 2, in the
preamble, under the paragraph heading
‘‘Special Analyses’’, line 4 from the
bottom of the paragraph, the language
‘‘these regulations was submitted to
the’’ is corrected to read ‘‘these
regulations were submitted to the’’.
Guy R. Traynor,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E6–8890 Filed 6–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
BILLING CODE 4710–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
27 CFR Part 9
26 CFR Part 1
[T.D. TTB–46; Re: Notice No. 45]
[TD 9254]
RIN 1545–BB25
RIN: 1513–AB02
Guidance Under Section 1502;
Suspension of Losses on Certain
Stock Dispositions; Correction
Establishment of the San Antonio
Valley Viticultural Area (2004R–599P)
This document contains
corrections to final regulations that were
published in the Federal Register on
Tuesday, March 14, 2006 (71 FR 13008).
The regulations apply when a member
of a consolidated group transfers
subsidiary stock at a loss. They also
apply when a member holds loss shares
of subsidiary stock and the subsidiary
ceases to be a member of the group.
DATES: This correction is effective
March 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theresa Abell (202) 622–7700 or Martin
Huck (202) 622–7750 (not toll-free
numbers).
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
AGENCY:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
AGENCY:
33239
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision
establishes the San Antonio Valley
viticultural area in southwestern
Monterey County, California, within the
existing Central Coast viticultural area.
We designate viticultural areas to allow
vintners to better describe the origin of
their wines and to allow consumers to
better identify wines they may
purchase.
DATES:
Effective Date: July 10, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and
Rulings Division, P.O. Box 18152,
Roanoke, VA 24014; telephone 540–
344–9333.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27
U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol
beverage labels provide consumers with
adequate information regarding product
identity and prohibits the use of
misleading information on such labels.
The FAA Act also authorizes the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue
regulations to carry out its provisions.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these
regulations.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
part 4) allows the establishment of
definitive viticultural areas and the use
of their names as appellations of origin
on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the
list of approved viticultural areas.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines
a viticultural area for American wine as
a delimited grape-growing region
distinguishable by geographical
features, the boundaries of which have
been recognized and defined in part 9
of the regulations. These designations
allow vintners and consumers to
attribute a given quality, reputation, or
other characteristic of a wine made from
grapes grown in an area to its
geographical origin. The establishment
of viticultural areas allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of
their wines to consumers and helps
consumers to identify wines they may
purchase. Establishment of a viticultural
area is neither an approval nor an
endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations outlines the procedure for
proposing an American viticultural area
and provides that any interested party
may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area.
Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations
requires the petition to include—
• Evidence that the proposed
viticultural area is locally and/or
nationally known by the name specified
in the petition;
• Historical or current evidence that
supports setting the boundary of the
proposed viticultural area as the
petition specifies;
• Evidence relating to the
geographical features, such as climate,
soils, elevation, and physical features,
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
33240
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
that distinguish the proposed
viticultural area from surrounding areas;
• A description of the specific
boundary of the proposed viticultural
area, based on features shown on United
States Geological Survey (USGS) maps;
and
• A copy of the appropriate USGS
map(s) with the proposed viticultural
area’s boundary prominently marked.
San Antonio Valley Petition and
Rulemaking
General Background
Paul Getzelman, Paula Getzelman,
and Steve Cobb of Lockwood,
California, petitioned TTB to establish
the ‘‘San Antonio Valley’’ viticultural
area in southwestern Monterey County,
California, in a valley situated in the
Santa Lucia mountain range. The area is
entirely within the existing multicounty Central Coast viticultural area
(27 CFR 9.75). According to the
petitioners, there are approximately 235
square miles, or 150,400 acres of land,
within the San Antonio Valley
viticultural area. Over 700 of these acres
are planted to vines.
We summarize below the evidence
presented in support of the petition.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Name Evidence
According to the petitioners, the name
‘‘San Antonio Valley’’ dates back to
1771, when a small party of Spanish
missionaries headed by Father Junipero
Serra entered the oak-mantled valley in
what was to become southern Monterey
County. Near the river that he
christened ‘‘El Rio de San Antonio,’’
they established a mission and named it
‘‘San Antonio de Padua’’ in honor of
Saint Anthony of Padua. They later
moved the mission to a location a
couple of miles north at the confluence
of the San Miguel and San Antonio
Rivers, which provided the missionaries
a more suitable place to plant grape
vines for making sacramental wine for
the Mission.
The petitioners cite the following
reference sources as evidence of the
historical and current usage of the name
‘‘San Antonio Valley’’:
• ‘‘Memories of the San Antonio
Valley,’’ by Rachel Gillett, San Antonio
Valley Historical Society, 1990. Ms.
Gillet refers repeatedly to the area as
‘‘San Antonio Valley.’’ She states that
the township of San Antonio was
surveyed in 1865, near the El Camino
Real or King’s Highway (currently Jolon
Road). She further notes that a San
Antonio post office operated in the
township from 1867 to 1887.
• ‘‘California Place Names; The
Origin and Etymology of Current
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Geographical Names,’’ by Erwin G.
Gudde and William Bright, University
of California Press, Fourth Edition. The
authors note that the name San Antonio,
which appears in the titles of many land
grants and claims, has survived in a
number of places, including in the
names of the San Antonio River, San
Antonio Mission, San Antonio Creek,
and San Antonio Valley.
• ‘‘Monterey County Place Names, a
Geographical Dictionary,’’ by Donald
Thomas Clark, Kestrel Press, 1991. The
author writes of the San Antonio Valley,
‘‘this is the valley through which the
San Antonio River flows.’’
• Pelican Network Guide, an Internet
travel site, states the following about the
San Antonio Valley: ‘‘Nearly secret, San
Antonio Valley is an intriguing * * *
destination. About two and a half hours
from Silicon Valley, yet far more remote
in history, it provides environmental,
literary, cultural, and historical rewards.
San Antonio Valley is the setting for
John Steinbeck’s ’To an Unknown God’,
an early novel of his spiritual and
ecological themes.’’ (See https://
www.pelicannetwork.net/
getaways.sanantonio.valley.htm.)
The petitioners state that although the
valley has been known by various
names, often due to changes in
ownership under the Spanish land grant
system, the name San Antonio Valley
has endured. According to the
petitioners, local residents have long
known the area as San Antonio Valley.
The name ‘‘San Antonio’’ is used
throughout the area-the San Antonio
Union School, San Antonio Reservoir,
and San Antonio River all can be found
on the USGS map for Williams Hill,
California. The petitioners note that
while the southern portion of the
proposed viticultural area is also known
as Lockwood Valley, the name
‘‘Lockwood’’ is most accurately applied
to a township in the southern portion of
the San Antonio Valley.
Boundary Evidence
The boundaries for the proposed
viticultural area are the natural
geographical boundaries of the San
Antonio Valley. The proposed area,
which includes approximately 150,400
acres of flat land and gently rolling hills,
extends to the surrounding hillsides that
rise to an elevation of approximately
2,200 feet. This valley, formed by the
watershed of the San Antonio River, is
situated in the Santa Lucia mountain
range between the Pacific coast and the
Salinas Valley. The San Antonio River
flows across the Santa Lucia range in a
southeasterly direction, then turns to
the east and flows into the Salinas
River. A dam built in the 1950s on the
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
river near the San Luis Obispo County
line created the San Antonio Reservoir,
which dominates the southeastern
corner of the proposed San Antonio
Valley viticultural area.
The proposed viticultural area’s
northwest boundary slices through part
of the Fort Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation. While the fort is currently
under the jurisdiction of the United
States Government, the petitioners note
that it could be offered for sale to the
public in the future. Because the
military reservation encompasses much
of the area in and around the boundary
of the proposed San Antonio Valley
viticultural area and shares the same
growing conditions, the petitioners
speculate that future uses of the land
could include vineyards.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petitioners, the San
Antonio Valley’s basin shape, elevation,
climate, and soils contribute to
significantly different growing
conditions from those found in the
adjoining areas within the extensive
Central Coast viticultural area. The
petitioners note that the Spanish
missionaries were the first to recognize
the valley’s unique grape growing
conditions. This viewpoint is reflected
in the Pelican Network Guide, which
states: ‘‘The Spaniards, who liked the
site for wine making because of its soil
and climate, were right on the money.’’
The growing conditions found in the
proposed San Antonio Valley
viticultural area are described by the
petitioners below.
Elevation
The elevation of the proposed San
Antonio Valley viticultural area ranges
from 850 feet to as high as 2,530 feet.
The proposed area is surrounded by the
higher Santa Lucia range to the west and
south and a lower ridge averaging 1,500
feet in elevation to the north and east.
According to the petitioners, the shape
and elevation of the proposed area
results in higher daytime and lower
nighttime temperatures than in
neighboring areas with lower elevations,
such as the Monterey viticultural area
(27 CFR 9.98) where the elevation
ranges from 50 to 540 feet. The
petitioners assert that the daily heatingcooling cycle produced by the proposed
San Antonio Valley viticultural area’s
higher elevation allows grapes to
achieve full, rich fruit flavor and color
while retaining a crisp acidity.
Soils
Soil data submitted by the petitioners
affirms that the San Antonio Valley has
a distinctive soil profile comprised of
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
nearly 40 different soil series, the
majority of them alluvial in nature. The
remaining soils found in the uplands
consist of material from weathered
sandstone and shale. Current vineyards
are planted on flat to moderately sloping
terrain. The principal soil series are
Arbuckle gravelly loam, Chamise shaly
loam, Lockwood loam and shaly loam,
Placentia sandy loam, PlacentiaArbuckle complex, Rincon clay loam,
Nacimiento silty clay loam, and
Pinnacles coarse sandy loam. The
submitted soil data for the area came
from ‘‘Soil Survey of Monterey County,
California,’’ published by the Soil
Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
The petitioners note that these soils
differ from the soils of neighboring areas
of Monterey County. In the San Bernabe
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.171), for
example, the soils, remnants of ancient
sand dunes, are mostly of the eolian
type. The adjacent Hames Valley
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.147) has a
very homogeneous soil profile with 75
percent of the soils derived from the
Lockwood series. In contrast, the San
Antonio Valley has a much more varied
soil profile with the majority of the soil
series being alluvial in nature.
Climate
The petitioners state that the San
Antonio Valley’s climate is much less
affected by marine air than other areas
of the Central Coast. A stable layer of
marine air typically dominates coastal
California weather causing higher
humidity, cooler maximum
temperatures, and warmer minimum
temperatures. This effect occurs with
greater duration in valleys close to the
coast, such as Carmel Valley, Edna
Valley, Santa Ynez Valley, and the
lower Salinas Valley. Its influence
decreases as one travels inland,
especially in the upper areas of the
Salinas Valley. According to the
petitioners, the inland position of the
San Antonio Valley and its basin shape
act to block the intrusion of this marine
air. Only when the upper level of
atmospheric pressure allows the layer of
marine air to expand to greater than its
typical depth of 1,000—1,500 feet does
the San Antonio Valley experience a
marine air influence. This lack of a
marine air influence creates a unique
microclimate for the area, with drier,
hotter days in summer and cooler nights
in the spring and fall.
As evidence of this climatic
distinction, the petitioners submitted
temperature comparisons based on data
from the National Weather Center. A
comparison of growing season average
monthly temperatures between San
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
Antonio Valley and nearby areas
(Carmel Valley, Gonzales, Arroyo Seco,
King City, and Paso Robles) shows that
San Antonio Valley is considerably
cooler than the other areas during April.
The petitioners state that this is due to
the San Antonio Valley’s basin shape
and drier conditions, factors that they
state also cause the San Antonio Valley
to experience more frequent frost
episodes. However, from June through
September the proposed San Antonio
viticultural area averages warmer
temperatures than the other areas, with
the exception of Paso Robles, an area
further inland than the San Antonio
Valley.
The petitioners also submitted a
comparison of both total growing season
degree days and monthly degree days
for the same places. (A measurement of
heat accumulation during the growing
season, one degree day accumulates for
each degree Fahrenheit that a day’s
mean temperature is above 50 degrees,
which is the minimum temperature
required for grapevine growth; see
‘‘General Viticulture,’’ by Albert J.
Winkler, University of California Press,
1974.) These comparisons show that
San Antonio Valley typically
accumulates more than 3,000 degree
days during the growing season. Paso
Robles accumulates 3,600 degree days
for the same period, while Carmel
Valley, Gonzales, and Arroyo Seco all
accumulate fewer than 2,400 degree
days each. King City accumulates
roughly as many degree days for the
growing season as San Antonio Valley.
However, the monthly comparison
shows that in King City the degree days
accumulate steadily through the
months, while in the San Antonio
Valley the increase and decrease in
degree days is much more dramatic,
with most of the increase occurring
during the summer months.
In addition to the temperature
comparisons described above, the
petitioners also submitted a
microclimate comparison of the
proposed San Antonio Valley
viticultural area and two adjacent
existing viticultural areas, Paso Robles
and Hames Valley (27 CFR 9.84 and
9.147, respectively). The data covered a
two-week period from September 16–29,
2003, and was collected at sites located
on the Fort Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation within the proposed
viticultural area, at Bradley in the
Hames Valley viticultural area, and at
the Paso Robles Airport within the Paso
Robles viticultural area. The petitioners
submitted the data in the form of graphs
exhibiting differences in temperature,
dew point, humidity, and wind speeds
between the three areas.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33241
According to the graphs, wind speeds
for the period were significantly lower
in San Antonio Valley than in Hames
Valley or Paso Robles. The petitioners
state that this is because the topography
of the proposed viticultural area blocks
the strongest daily afternoon winds
created by marine air influence. Dew
points for the period were shown to be
at least 10 degrees lower in the
proposed San Antonio Valley
viticultural area than in the other
viticultural areas, reflecting the
proposed viticultural area’s lower
humidity. The temperature data,
according to the petitioners, shows that
the proposed San Antonio Valley
viticultural area also has a temperature
profile that differs markedly from that of
the Hames Valley or Paso Robles
viticultural areas. Generally, this data
shows that the proposed area is less
affected by marine air intrusions. The
petitioners note that during times of
marine air influence, the proposed San
Antonio Valley viticultural area has a
much greater temperature variance than
the two existing viticultural areas where
the marine air moderates the
temperatures. They also note that on
days with little marine air influence, the
proposed area experiences less
temperature variation than the two
existing areas.
Thus, the data submitted by the
petitioners shows the climate in the
proposed San Antonio Valley
viticultural area to be significantly
different in regard to temperature, wind,
humidity, and degree day
accumulations from surrounding
existing viticultural areas. These
differences, they contend, are a
reflection of the proposed area’s basin
geography, making the grape growing
environment in the proposed San
Antonio Valley viticultural area unique
relative to other Central Coast
viticultural areas.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Comments Received
On May 19, 2005, TTB published a
notice of proposed rulemaking regarding
the establishment of the San Antonio
Valley viticultural area in the Federal
Register (70 FR 28865) as Notice No. 45.
In that notice, TTB requested comments
by July 18, 2005, from all interested
persons. TTB received two comments in
response to the notice.
The first comment, from the Monterey
County Vintners & Growers Association,
supported the establishment of the new
area, stating that its designation
provides consumers with a better tool
for distinguishing between the wine
producing areas of Monterey County.
The second comment, from Anthony
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
33242
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Riboli, owner of San Antonio Winery in
Los Angeles, California, opposed the
creation of the viticultural area. Mr.
Riboli states that he believes consumers
will confuse the viticultural area name
with the name of his winery. He did not,
however, submit any evidence to
support this position. He also notes that
he owns a trademark for the brand name
‘‘San Antonio Winery.’’
TTB does not agree with the comment
of Anthony Riboli that consumers will
confuse the name of his winery, San
Antonio Winery, with the name of the
proposed viticultural area. The name
‘‘San Antonio’’ is a common place name
that is used throughout the United
States, most notably for the well-known
city in Texas, and therefore we do not
believe that consumers would
specifically associate the name ‘‘San
Antonio Valley’’ with Mr. Riboli’s
winery in Los Angeles. In addition, as
we proposed in Notice No. 45, we will
recognize only the entire name ‘‘San
Antonio Valley’’ as a name of
viticultural significance upon
establishment of the proposed
viticultural area. Thus, the
establishment of this viticultural area
will have no impact on the San Antonio
Winery’s ability to use its brand name
on its wine labels (See the Impact on
Current Wine Labels discussion below).
Furthermore, we do not believe that
Mr. Riboli’s trademark registration of
the brand name ‘‘San Antonio Winery’’
has any bearing on this case. We believe
the modifier ‘‘valley’’ within the name
‘‘San Antonio Valley’’ would
sufficiently differentiate the viticultural
area name from the San Antonio Winery
name.
Additionally, it has long been the
position of TTB and its predecessor, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (ATF), that trademark
registration of a name does not limit our
authority to establish a viticultural area
with the same or similar name. In T.D.
ATF–278, which established the Wild
Horse Valley viticultural area, ATF
stated:
It is not the policy of ATF to become
involved in purely private disputes involving
proprietary rights, such as trademark
infringement suits. However, in the event a
direct conflict arises between some or all of
the rights granted by a registered trademark
under the Lanham Act and the right to use
the name of a viticultural area established
under the FAA Act, it is the position of ATF
that the rights applicable to the viticultural
area should control. ATF believes that the
evidence submitted by the petitioner
establishes that the designation of the Wild
Horse Valley viticultural area is in
conformance with the laws and regulations.
Accordingly, ATF finds that Federal
registration of the term ‘‘Wild Horse’’ does
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
not limit the Bureau’s authority to establish
a viticultural area known as ‘‘Wild Horse
Valley.’’ (See 53 FR 48244, November 30,
1988.)
This policy on the relationship
between trademarks and viticultural
areas was upheld in Sociedad Anonima
Vina Santa Rita v. Dept. of Treasury,
193F. Supp. 2nd 6 (D.D.C 2001). In that
decision, the court held that ‘‘while the
Lanham Act affords Plaintiff certain
rights and causes of action with respect
to the use of its marks, the ATF’s
decision to approve the Santa Rita Hills
[viticultural area] does not impede those
rights.’’ (See Santa Rita at 22.) In other
words, by this rule, TTB is not creating
a name but recognizing a pre-existing
geographic fact.
TTB Finding
After careful review of the San
Antonio Valley viticultural area petition
and the comments received, TTB finds
that the evidence submitted supports
the establishment of the proposed
viticultural area. Therefore, under the
authority of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act and part 4 of our
regulations, we establish the ‘‘San
Antonio Valley’’ viticultural area in
Monterey County, California, effective
30 days from this document’s
publication date.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary
description of the viticultural area in the
regulatory text published at the end of
this final rule.
Maps
The petitioners provided the required
maps, and we list them below in the
regulatory text.
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. With the
establishment of this viticultural area
and its inclusion in part 9 of the TTB
regulations, its name, ‘‘San Antonio
Valley,’’ is recognized as a name of
viticultural significance. Consequently,
wine bottlers using ‘‘San Antonio
Valley’’ in a brand name, including a
trademark, or in another label reference
as to the origin of the wine, must ensure
that the product is eligible to use the
viticultural area’s name as an
appellation of origin.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
represented by that name, and the wine
must meet the other conditions listed in
27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). 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.
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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this regulation will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This regulation imposes no new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of a viticultural
area name is the result of a proprietor’s
efforts and consumer acceptance of
wines from that area. Therefore, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735).
Therefore, it requires no regulatory
assessment.
Drafting Information
Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and
Rulings Division drafted this document.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter 1,
part 9, as follows:
I
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Subpart C is amended by adding
§ 9.194 to read as follows:
I
§ 9.194
San Antonio Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is ‘‘San
Antonio Valley’’. For purposes of part 4
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
of this chapter, ‘‘San Antonio Valley’’ is
a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate
maps for determining the boundary of
the San Antonio Valley viticultural area
are ten United States Geological Survey
1:24,000 scale topographic maps. They
are titled:
(1) Hames Valley, California, 1949,
photorevised 1978;
(2) Tierra Redonda Mountain,
California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
(3) Bradley, California, 1949,
photorevised 1979;
(4) Bryson, California, 1949,
photorevised 1979;
(5) Williams Hill, California, 1949,
photorevised 1979;
(6) Jolon, California, 1949;
(7) Alder Peak, California, 1995;
(8) Bear Canyon, California, 1949,
photoinspected 1972;
(9) Cosio Knob, California, 1949,
photorevised 1984; and
(10) Espinosa Canyon, California,
1949, photorevised 1979.
(c) Boundary. The San Antonio Valley
viticultural area is located in Monterey
County, California. The boundary of the
San Antonio Valley viticultural area is
as described below:
(1) The beginning point is at the
southeast corner of section 14, T23S,
R9E, on the Hames Valley map;
(2) From the beginning point, proceed
southeast in a straight line for
approximately 5 miles across sections
24 and 25, T23S, R9E, and sections 30,
31, and 32, T23S, R10E, and section 5,
T24S, R10E, to the southeast corner of
section 5, on the Tierra Redonda
Mountain map; then
(3) Continue southeast in a straight
line for approximately 3.25 miles
through sections 9, 16, 15, and 22, T24S,
R10E, to the mid-point of the eastern
boundary of section 22 on the Bradley
map; then
(4) Proceed straight south for
approximately 2.5 miles along the
eastern boundary line of sections 22, 27,
and 34, T24S, R10E, to the MontereySan Luis Obispo County line; then
(5) Follow the Monterey-San Luis
Obispo County line west for
approximately 7.0 miles, back onto the
Tierra Redonda Mountain map, to the
southwest corner of section 34, T24S,
R9E; then
(6) Proceed northwest in a straight
line for approximately 17 miles,
crossing sections 33, 32, 29, 30, and 19,
T24S, R9E, and sections 24, 13, 14, 10,
9, and 4, T24S, R8E, on the Bryson map,
section 5, T24S, R8E in the southwest
corner of the Williams Hill map, section
32, T23S, and sections 23, 22, 15, and
16, T23S, R7E, on the Jolon map, to an
1,890-foot peak located approximately
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:35 Jun 07, 2006
Jkt 208001
2,100 feet west of section 8, T23S, R7E;
then
(7) Continue northwest in a straight
line for approximately 9 miles, crossing
the Alder Peak map between Milpitas
Grant and Stony Valley, and sections 9,
4, and 5, T22S, R6E, on the Bear Canyon
map, to a 2,713-foot peak located in
section 5, T22S, R6E; then
(8) Proceed east-northeast in a straight
line for approximately 3.9 miles,
passing onto the Hunter Liggett Military
Reservation and crossing the San
Antonio River, to a 2,449-foot peak on
the Hunter Liggett Military Reservation;
then
(9) Proceed northeast in a straight line
for approximately 2.5 miles, crossing
Mission Creek, across sections 30 and
29, T21S, R7E, on the Cosio Knob map
to the 2,530-foot peak of Cosio Knob;
then
(10) From Cosio Knob, proceed eastsoutheast in a straight line for
approximately 9.5 miles across sections
29, 28, 27, 26, 35, and 36, T21S, R7E,
sections 31 and 32, T21S, R8E, and
sections 5, 4, 3, and 2, T22S, R8E, on the
Espinosa Canyon map, to a 1,811-foot
peak located in section 2; then
(11) Proceed southeast in a straight
line for approximately 10.4 miles across
sections 2, 11, 12, and 13, T22S, R8E,
and sections 18 and 19, T22S, R9E, on
the Espinosa Canyon map, sections 19,
30, 29, 32, and 33, T22S, R9E, on the
northwest corner of the Williams Hill
map, and sections 4, 3, 10, 11, and 14,
T23S, R9E, on the Hames Valley map,
to the beginning point at the southeast
corner of section 14, T23S, R9E.
Signed: March 6, 2006.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: March 16, 2006.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. E6–8854 Filed 6–7–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 925
[Docket No. MO–038–FOR]
Missouri Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33243
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to
the Missouri regulatory program
(Missouri program) under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Previously
we substituted direct Federal
enforcement for portions of the Missouri
program. Missouri regained full
authority for its program on February 1,
2006. Missouri proposed to amend its
approved regulatory program and
submitted a temporary emergency
regulatory program rule (emergency
rule) to revise Missouri’s regulations
regarding bonding of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations. The
emergency rule will allow Missouri to
transition from a ‘‘bond pool’’ approach
to bonding to a ‘‘full cost bond’’
approach in a timely manner. Missouri
proposed to revise its program to
improve operational efficiency.
DATES:
Effective Date: June 8, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field
Division. Telephone: (618) 463–6460.
E-mail: ifomail@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Missouri Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Missouri Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its State program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Missouri
program on November 21, 1980. You
can find background information on the
Missouri program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval,
in the November 21, 1980, Federal
Register (45 FR 77017). You can also
find later actions concerning the
Missouri program and program
amendments at 30 CFR 925.10, 925.12,
925.15, and 925.16.
E:\FR\FM\08JNR1.SGM
08JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33239-33243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8854]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[T.D. TTB-46; Re: Notice No. 45]
RIN: 1513-AB02
Establishment of the San Antonio Valley Viticultural Area (2004R-
599P)
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes the San Antonio Valley
viticultural area in southwestern Monterey County, California, within
the existing Central Coast viticultural area. We designate viticultural
areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines
and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
DATES: Effective Date: July 10, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division, P.O. Box 18152,
Roanoke, VA 24014; telephone 540-344-9333.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA
Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol beverage labels
provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity
and prohibits the use of misleading information on such labels. The FAA
Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations
to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau (TTB) administers these regulations.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains
the list of approved viticultural areas.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries
of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations.
These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given
quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes
grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of
viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the
origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify
wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in
that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure
for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires
the petition to include--
Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally
and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
Historical or current evidence that supports setting the
boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as
climate, soils, elevation, and physical features,
[[Page 33240]]
that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
A description of the specific boundary of the proposed
viticultural area, based on features shown on United States Geological
Survey (USGS) maps; and
A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed
viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.
San Antonio Valley Petition and Rulemaking
General Background
Paul Getzelman, Paula Getzelman, and Steve Cobb of Lockwood,
California, petitioned TTB to establish the ``San Antonio Valley''
viticultural area in southwestern Monterey County, California, in a
valley situated in the Santa Lucia mountain range. The area is entirely
within the existing multi-county Central Coast viticultural area (27
CFR 9.75). According to the petitioners, there are approximately 235
square miles, or 150,400 acres of land, within the San Antonio Valley
viticultural area. Over 700 of these acres are planted to vines.
We summarize below the evidence presented in support of the
petition.
Name Evidence
According to the petitioners, the name ``San Antonio Valley'' dates
back to 1771, when a small party of Spanish missionaries headed by
Father Junipero Serra entered the oak-mantled valley in what was to
become southern Monterey County. Near the river that he christened ``El
Rio de San Antonio,'' they established a mission and named it ``San
Antonio de Padua'' in honor of Saint Anthony of Padua. They later moved
the mission to a location a couple of miles north at the confluence of
the San Miguel and San Antonio Rivers, which provided the missionaries
a more suitable place to plant grape vines for making sacramental wine
for the Mission.
The petitioners cite the following reference sources as evidence of
the historical and current usage of the name ``San Antonio Valley'':
``Memories of the San Antonio Valley,'' by Rachel Gillett,
San Antonio Valley Historical Society, 1990. Ms. Gillet refers
repeatedly to the area as ``San Antonio Valley.'' She states that the
township of San Antonio was surveyed in 1865, near the El Camino Real
or King's Highway (currently Jolon Road). She further notes that a San
Antonio post office operated in the township from 1867 to 1887.
``California Place Names; The Origin and Etymology of
Current Geographical Names,'' by Erwin G. Gudde and William Bright,
University of California Press, Fourth Edition. The authors note that
the name San Antonio, which appears in the titles of many land grants
and claims, has survived in a number of places, including in the names
of the San Antonio River, San Antonio Mission, San Antonio Creek, and
San Antonio Valley.
``Monterey County Place Names, a Geographical
Dictionary,'' by Donald Thomas Clark, Kestrel Press, 1991. The author
writes of the San Antonio Valley, ``this is the valley through which
the San Antonio River flows.''
Pelican Network Guide, an Internet travel site, states the
following about the San Antonio Valley: ``Nearly secret, San Antonio
Valley is an intriguing * * * destination. About two and a half hours
from Silicon Valley, yet far more remote in history, it provides
environmental, literary, cultural, and historical rewards. San Antonio
Valley is the setting for John Steinbeck's 'To an Unknown God', an
early novel of his spiritual and ecological themes.'' (See https://
www.pelicannetwork.net/getaways.sanantonio.valley.htm.)
The petitioners state that although the valley has been known by
various names, often due to changes in ownership under the Spanish land
grant system, the name San Antonio Valley has endured. According to the
petitioners, local residents have long known the area as San Antonio
Valley. The name ``San Antonio'' is used throughout the area-the San
Antonio Union School, San Antonio Reservoir, and San Antonio River all
can be found on the USGS map for Williams Hill, California. The
petitioners note that while the southern portion of the proposed
viticultural area is also known as Lockwood Valley, the name
``Lockwood'' is most accurately applied to a township in the southern
portion of the San Antonio Valley.
Boundary Evidence
The boundaries for the proposed viticultural area are the natural
geographical boundaries of the San Antonio Valley. The proposed area,
which includes approximately 150,400 acres of flat land and gently
rolling hills, extends to the surrounding hillsides that rise to an
elevation of approximately 2,200 feet. This valley, formed by the
watershed of the San Antonio River, is situated in the Santa Lucia
mountain range between the Pacific coast and the Salinas Valley. The
San Antonio River flows across the Santa Lucia range in a southeasterly
direction, then turns to the east and flows into the Salinas River. A
dam built in the 1950s on the river near the San Luis Obispo County
line created the San Antonio Reservoir, which dominates the
southeastern corner of the proposed San Antonio Valley viticultural
area.
The proposed viticultural area's northwest boundary slices through
part of the Fort Hunter Liggett Military Reservation. While the fort is
currently under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, the
petitioners note that it could be offered for sale to the public in the
future. Because the military reservation encompasses much of the area
in and around the boundary of the proposed San Antonio Valley
viticultural area and shares the same growing conditions, the
petitioners speculate that future uses of the land could include
vineyards.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petitioners, the San Antonio Valley's basin shape,
elevation, climate, and soils contribute to significantly different
growing conditions from those found in the adjoining areas within the
extensive Central Coast viticultural area. The petitioners note that
the Spanish missionaries were the first to recognize the valley's
unique grape growing conditions. This viewpoint is reflected in the
Pelican Network Guide, which states: ``The Spaniards, who liked the
site for wine making because of its soil and climate, were right on the
money.'' The growing conditions found in the proposed San Antonio
Valley viticultural area are described by the petitioners below.
Elevation
The elevation of the proposed San Antonio Valley viticultural area
ranges from 850 feet to as high as 2,530 feet. The proposed area is
surrounded by the higher Santa Lucia range to the west and south and a
lower ridge averaging 1,500 feet in elevation to the north and east.
According to the petitioners, the shape and elevation of the proposed
area results in higher daytime and lower nighttime temperatures than in
neighboring areas with lower elevations, such as the Monterey
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.98) where the elevation ranges from 50 to
540 feet. The petitioners assert that the daily heating-cooling cycle
produced by the proposed San Antonio Valley viticultural area's higher
elevation allows grapes to achieve full, rich fruit flavor and color
while retaining a crisp acidity.
Soils
Soil data submitted by the petitioners affirms that the San Antonio
Valley has a distinctive soil profile comprised of
[[Page 33241]]
nearly 40 different soil series, the majority of them alluvial in
nature. The remaining soils found in the uplands consist of material
from weathered sandstone and shale. Current vineyards are planted on
flat to moderately sloping terrain. The principal soil series are
Arbuckle gravelly loam, Chamise shaly loam, Lockwood loam and shaly
loam, Placentia sandy loam, Placentia-Arbuckle complex, Rincon clay
loam, Nacimiento silty clay loam, and Pinnacles coarse sandy loam. The
submitted soil data for the area came from ``Soil Survey of Monterey
County, California,'' published by the Soil Conservation Service of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The petitioners note that these soils differ from the soils of
neighboring areas of Monterey County. In the San Bernabe viticultural
area (27 CFR 9.171), for example, the soils, remnants of ancient sand
dunes, are mostly of the eolian type. The adjacent Hames Valley
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.147) has a very homogeneous soil profile
with 75 percent of the soils derived from the Lockwood series. In
contrast, the San Antonio Valley has a much more varied soil profile
with the majority of the soil series being alluvial in nature.
Climate
The petitioners state that the San Antonio Valley's climate is much
less affected by marine air than other areas of the Central Coast. A
stable layer of marine air typically dominates coastal California
weather causing higher humidity, cooler maximum temperatures, and
warmer minimum temperatures. This effect occurs with greater duration
in valleys close to the coast, such as Carmel Valley, Edna Valley,
Santa Ynez Valley, and the lower Salinas Valley. Its influence
decreases as one travels inland, especially in the upper areas of the
Salinas Valley. According to the petitioners, the inland position of
the San Antonio Valley and its basin shape act to block the intrusion
of this marine air. Only when the upper level of atmospheric pressure
allows the layer of marine air to expand to greater than its typical
depth of 1,000--1,500 feet does the San Antonio Valley experience a
marine air influence. This lack of a marine air influence creates a
unique microclimate for the area, with drier, hotter days in summer and
cooler nights in the spring and fall.
As evidence of this climatic distinction, the petitioners submitted
temperature comparisons based on data from the National Weather Center.
A comparison of growing season average monthly temperatures between San
Antonio Valley and nearby areas (Carmel Valley, Gonzales, Arroyo Seco,
King City, and Paso Robles) shows that San Antonio Valley is
considerably cooler than the other areas during April. The petitioners
state that this is due to the San Antonio Valley's basin shape and
drier conditions, factors that they state also cause the San Antonio
Valley to experience more frequent frost episodes. However, from June
through September the proposed San Antonio viticultural area averages
warmer temperatures than the other areas, with the exception of Paso
Robles, an area further inland than the San Antonio Valley.
The petitioners also submitted a comparison of both total growing
season degree days and monthly degree days for the same places. (A
measurement of heat accumulation during the growing season, one degree
day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean
temperature is above 50 degrees, which is the minimum temperature
required for grapevine growth; see ``General Viticulture,'' by Albert
J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1974.) These comparisons
show that San Antonio Valley typically accumulates more than 3,000
degree days during the growing season. Paso Robles accumulates 3,600
degree days for the same period, while Carmel Valley, Gonzales, and
Arroyo Seco all accumulate fewer than 2,400 degree days each. King City
accumulates roughly as many degree days for the growing season as San
Antonio Valley. However, the monthly comparison shows that in King City
the degree days accumulate steadily through the months, while in the
San Antonio Valley the increase and decrease in degree days is much
more dramatic, with most of the increase occurring during the summer
months.
In addition to the temperature comparisons described above, the
petitioners also submitted a microclimate comparison of the proposed
San Antonio Valley viticultural area and two adjacent existing
viticultural areas, Paso Robles and Hames Valley (27 CFR 9.84 and
9.147, respectively). The data covered a two-week period from September
16-29, 2003, and was collected at sites located on the Fort Hunter
Liggett Military Reservation within the proposed viticultural area, at
Bradley in the Hames Valley viticultural area, and at the Paso Robles
Airport within the Paso Robles viticultural area. The petitioners
submitted the data in the form of graphs exhibiting differences in
temperature, dew point, humidity, and wind speeds between the three
areas.
According to the graphs, wind speeds for the period were
significantly lower in San Antonio Valley than in Hames Valley or Paso
Robles. The petitioners state that this is because the topography of
the proposed viticultural area blocks the strongest daily afternoon
winds created by marine air influence. Dew points for the period were
shown to be at least 10 degrees lower in the proposed San Antonio
Valley viticultural area than in the other viticultural areas,
reflecting the proposed viticultural area's lower humidity. The
temperature data, according to the petitioners, shows that the proposed
San Antonio Valley viticultural area also has a temperature profile
that differs markedly from that of the Hames Valley or Paso Robles
viticultural areas. Generally, this data shows that the proposed area
is less affected by marine air intrusions. The petitioners note that
during times of marine air influence, the proposed San Antonio Valley
viticultural area has a much greater temperature variance than the two
existing viticultural areas where the marine air moderates the
temperatures. They also note that on days with little marine air
influence, the proposed area experiences less temperature variation
than the two existing areas.
Thus, the data submitted by the petitioners shows the climate in
the proposed San Antonio Valley viticultural area to be significantly
different in regard to temperature, wind, humidity, and degree day
accumulations from surrounding existing viticultural areas. These
differences, they contend, are a reflection of the proposed area's
basin geography, making the grape growing environment in the proposed
San Antonio Valley viticultural area unique relative to other Central
Coast viticultural areas.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
On May 19, 2005, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding the establishment of the San Antonio Valley viticultural area
in the Federal Register (70 FR 28865) as Notice No. 45. In that notice,
TTB requested comments by July 18, 2005, from all interested persons.
TTB received two comments in response to the notice.
The first comment, from the Monterey County Vintners & Growers
Association, supported the establishment of the new area, stating that
its designation provides consumers with a better tool for
distinguishing between the wine producing areas of Monterey County. The
second comment, from Anthony
[[Page 33242]]
Riboli, owner of San Antonio Winery in Los Angeles, California, opposed
the creation of the viticultural area. Mr. Riboli states that he
believes consumers will confuse the viticultural area name with the
name of his winery. He did not, however, submit any evidence to support
this position. He also notes that he owns a trademark for the brand
name ``San Antonio Winery.''
TTB does not agree with the comment of Anthony Riboli that
consumers will confuse the name of his winery, San Antonio Winery, with
the name of the proposed viticultural area. The name ``San Antonio'' is
a common place name that is used throughout the United States, most
notably for the well-known city in Texas, and therefore we do not
believe that consumers would specifically associate the name ``San
Antonio Valley'' with Mr. Riboli's winery in Los Angeles. In addition,
as we proposed in Notice No. 45, we will recognize only the entire name
``San Antonio Valley'' as a name of viticultural significance upon
establishment of the proposed viticultural area. Thus, the
establishment of this viticultural area will have no impact on the San
Antonio Winery's ability to use its brand name on its wine labels (See
the Impact on Current Wine Labels discussion below).
Furthermore, we do not believe that Mr. Riboli's trademark
registration of the brand name ``San Antonio Winery'' has any bearing
on this case. We believe the modifier ``valley'' within the name ``San
Antonio Valley'' would sufficiently differentiate the viticultural area
name from the San Antonio Winery name.
Additionally, it has long been the position of TTB and its
predecessor, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), that
trademark registration of a name does not limit our authority to
establish a viticultural area with the same or similar name. In T.D.
ATF-278, which established the Wild Horse Valley viticultural area, ATF
stated:
It is not the policy of ATF to become involved in purely private
disputes involving proprietary rights, such as trademark
infringement suits. However, in the event a direct conflict arises
between some or all of the rights granted by a registered trademark
under the Lanham Act and the right to use the name of a viticultural
area established under the FAA Act, it is the position of ATF that
the rights applicable to the viticultural area should control. ATF
believes that the evidence submitted by the petitioner establishes
that the designation of the Wild Horse Valley viticultural area is
in conformance with the laws and regulations. Accordingly, ATF finds
that Federal registration of the term ``Wild Horse'' does not limit
the Bureau's authority to establish a viticultural area known as
``Wild Horse Valley.'' (See 53 FR 48244, November 30, 1988.)
This policy on the relationship between trademarks and viticultural
areas was upheld in Sociedad Anonima Vina Santa Rita v. Dept. of
Treasury, 193F. Supp. 2nd 6 (D.D.C 2001). In that decision, the court
held that ``while the Lanham Act affords Plaintiff certain rights and
causes of action with respect to the use of its marks, the ATF's
decision to approve the Santa Rita Hills [viticultural area] does not
impede those rights.'' (See Santa Rita at 22.) In other words, by this
rule, TTB is not creating a name but recognizing a pre-existing
geographic fact.
TTB Finding
After careful review of the San Antonio Valley viticultural area
petition and the comments received, TTB finds that the evidence
submitted supports the establishment of the proposed viticultural area.
Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration
Act and part 4 of our regulations, we establish the ``San Antonio
Valley'' viticultural area in Monterey County, California, effective 30
days from this document's publication date.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary description of the viticultural area in
the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
Maps
The petitioners provided the required maps, and we list them below
in the regulatory text.
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. With the establishment of this viticultural area and
its inclusion in part 9 of the TTB regulations, its name, ``San Antonio
Valley,'' is recognized as a name of viticultural significance.
Consequently, wine bottlers using ``San Antonio Valley'' in a brand
name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the
origin of the wine, must ensure that the product is eligible to use the
viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin.
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, and the wine must meet
the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). 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.
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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a
viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and
consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735). Therefore, it requires no
regulatory assessment.
Drafting Information
Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this
document.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter 1,
part 9, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.194 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.194 San Antonio Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``San Antonio Valley''. For purposes of part 4
[[Page 33243]]
of this chapter, ``San Antonio Valley'' is a term of viticultural
significance.
(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate maps for determining the
boundary of the San Antonio Valley viticultural area are ten United
States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. They are
titled:
(1) Hames Valley, California, 1949, photorevised 1978;
(2) Tierra Redonda Mountain, California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
(3) Bradley, California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
(4) Bryson, California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
(5) Williams Hill, California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
(6) Jolon, California, 1949;
(7) Alder Peak, California, 1995;
(8) Bear Canyon, California, 1949, photoinspected 1972;
(9) Cosio Knob, California, 1949, photorevised 1984; and
(10) Espinosa Canyon, California, 1949, photorevised 1979.
(c) Boundary. The San Antonio Valley viticultural area is located
in Monterey County, California. The boundary of the San Antonio Valley
viticultural area is as described below:
(1) The beginning point is at the southeast corner of section 14,
T23S, R9E, on the Hames Valley map;
(2) From the beginning point, proceed southeast in a straight line
for approximately 5 miles across sections 24 and 25, T23S, R9E, and
sections 30, 31, and 32, T23S, R10E, and section 5, T24S, R10E, to the
southeast corner of section 5, on the Tierra Redonda Mountain map; then
(3) Continue southeast in a straight line for approximately 3.25
miles through sections 9, 16, 15, and 22, T24S, R10E, to the mid-point
of the eastern boundary of section 22 on the Bradley map; then
(4) Proceed straight south for approximately 2.5 miles along the
eastern boundary line of sections 22, 27, and 34, T24S, R10E, to the
Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line; then
(5) Follow the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line west for
approximately 7.0 miles, back onto the Tierra Redonda Mountain map, to
the southwest corner of section 34, T24S, R9E; then
(6) Proceed northwest in a straight line for approximately 17
miles, crossing sections 33, 32, 29, 30, and 19, T24S, R9E, and
sections 24, 13, 14, 10, 9, and 4, T24S, R8E, on the Bryson map,
section 5, T24S, R8E in the southwest corner of the Williams Hill map,
section 32, T23S, and sections 23, 22, 15, and 16, T23S, R7E, on the
Jolon map, to an 1,890-foot peak located approximately 2,100 feet west
of section 8, T23S, R7E; then
(7) Continue northwest in a straight line for approximately 9
miles, crossing the Alder Peak map between Milpitas Grant and Stony
Valley, and sections 9, 4, and 5, T22S, R6E, on the Bear Canyon map, to
a 2,713-foot peak located in section 5, T22S, R6E; then
(8) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line for approximately 3.9
miles, passing onto the Hunter Liggett Military Reservation and
crossing the San Antonio River, to a 2,449-foot peak on the Hunter
Liggett Military Reservation; then
(9) Proceed northeast in a straight line for approximately 2.5
miles, crossing Mission Creek, across sections 30 and 29, T21S, R7E, on
the Cosio Knob map to the 2,530-foot peak of Cosio Knob; then
(10) From Cosio Knob, proceed east-southeast in a straight line for
approximately 9.5 miles across sections 29, 28, 27, 26, 35, and 36,
T21S, R7E, sections 31 and 32, T21S, R8E, and sections 5, 4, 3, and 2,
T22S, R8E, on the Espinosa Canyon map, to a 1,811-foot peak located in
section 2; then
(11) Proceed southeast in a straight line for approximately 10.4
miles across sections 2, 11, 12, and 13, T22S, R8E, and sections 18 and
19, T22S, R9E, on the Espinosa Canyon map, sections 19, 30, 29, 32, and
33, T22S, R9E, on the northwest corner of the Williams Hill map, and
sections 4, 3, 10, 11, and 14, T23S, R9E, on the Hames Valley map, to
the beginning point at the southeast corner of section 14, T23S, R9E.
Signed: March 6, 2006.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: March 16, 2006.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. E6-8854 Filed 6-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
