Proposed Establishment of the Paso Robles Westside Viticultural Area (2006R-087P), 19917-19920 [E9-9855]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Year 3
Additional Annuity ......................................................................
$34,560
Additional Annuity ......................................................................
Annuity in Year of Death ...........................................................
28,800
144,000
Deferral Period
$2,117,647 ...........
Total amount included in gross estate (sum) ....................
....................
..............................
(iv) A total corpus amount (as defined in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this section) of
$2,973,866 constitutes the principal required
as of D’s date of death to produce (without
reducing or invading principal) the annual
payments that D would have received if D
had survived and continued to receive the
retained annuity. Therefore, $2,973,866 of
the trust corpus is includible in D’s gross
estate under section 2036(a)(1). The
remaining $226,134 of the trust corpus is not
includible in D’s gross estate under section
2036(a)(1). The result would be the same if
D’s retained annuity instead had been
payable to D for a term of 5 years, or until
D’s prior death, at which time the GRAT
would have terminated and the trust corpus
would have become payable to another.
(v) If, instead, D’s annuity was to have been
paid on a monthly or quarterly basis, then the
periodic addition would have to be adjusted
as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of
this section. Specifically, in Column D of the
Table for years 4 and 5 in this example, the
amount of the principal required would be
computed by multiplying the periodic
addition by the appropriate factor from Table
K or J of § 20.2036–7(d)(6) before dividing as
indicated and computing the amounts in
Columns E through G. In addition, Column
D in year 3 also would have to be so adjusted.
Under the facts presented, section 2039 does
not apply to include any amount in D’s gross
estate by reason of this retained interest. See
§ 20.2039–1(e).
(3) * * * Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this
section is applicable to estates of
decedents dying on or after the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
the Treasury decision adopting these
rules as final regulations. The
introductory text of paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
of this section, Example 1 of paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) of this section, all of paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section, and Example 7
of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section,
are applicable to estates of decedents
dying on or after the date of publication
in the Federal Register of the Treasury
decision adopting these rules as final
regulations.
Linda E. Stiff,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E9–10003 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Apr 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Deferral Period
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[TTB Docket No. 2007–0060; Notice No. 94;
Re: Notice Nos. 71 and 72]
RIN 1513–AB27
Proposed Establishment of the Paso
Robles Westside Viticultural Area
(2006R–087P)
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau announces the
withdrawal of its proposal to establish
the Paso Robles Westside viticultural
area within the existing Paso Robles
viticultural area in San Luis Obispo
County, California. We take this action
because, given the conflicting
information before us, we cannot
conclude that a delimited grape-growing
region exists that is recognized by the
name Paso Robles Westside.
DATES: Notice No. 71 is withdrawn as of
April 30, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.
A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., 158,
Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415–
271–1254.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (FAA Act), 27
U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to prescribe regulations
for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits,
and malt beverages. The FAA Act
provides that these regulations should,
among other things, prohibit consumer
deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that
labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity
and quality of the product. The Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Year 4
Sfmt 4702
Year 5
19917
Includible
amount
$453,026
$453,026
$403,193
....................
....................
403,193
2,117,647
....................
....................
2,973,866
(TTB) administers the regulations
promulgated under the FAA Act.
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) sets forth
standards for petitions for the
establishment of viticultural areas and
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
geographic 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 geographic
features, such as climate, soils,
elevation, and physical features, that
distinguish the proposed viticultural
area from surrounding areas;
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
19918
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
• A description of the specific
boundary of the proposed viticultural
area, based on features found 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.
Publication of Notice No. 71
On January 24, 2007, TTB published
Notice No. 71, a notice of proposed
rulemaking, in the Federal Register (72
FR 3088) regarding the proposed
establishment of the ‘‘Paso Robles
Westside’’ American viticultural area in
northern San Luis Obispo County,
California. We undertook that action in
response to a petition filed on behalf of
21 vintners and grape growers with
interests in the proposed viticultural
area. As outlined in Notice No. 71, the
proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area lay west of the Salinas
River but entirely within the existing
Paso Robles viticultural area (27 CFR
9.84), which in turn is entirely within
the existing, multi-county Central Coast
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75).
Comments on the proposed Paso
Robles Westside viticultural area were
originally due on or before March 26,
2007. However, on March 23, 2007, in
response to a request from other Paso
Robles wine industry members, we
extended the comment period for Notice
No. 71 until April 24, 2007 (see Notice
No. 72 published in the Federal
Register at 72 FR 13720 on March 23,
2007).
Shortly before publication of Notice
No. 71, TTB received 12 petitions from
the Paso Robles AVA Committee
(PRAVAC), one of which proposed the
expansion of the existing Paso Robles
viticultural area and 11 of which
proposed the establishment of 11
smaller viticultural areas within the
expanded Paso Robles viticultural area.
Comments Received in Response to
Notice No. 71
TTB received 220 comments in
response to Notice No. 71. Of those, 144
supported the establishment of the
proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area, 61 opposed it, and, of
the remaining 15 commenters, 2
requested an extension of time to
comment and 13 provided comments
that could not be described as clearly
supporting or opposing the proposal.
The 144 supporting comments included
19 from grape growers and/or wine
producers and 125 from other sources.
Of the 61 opposing comments, 43 were
from grape growers and/or wine
producers, including a single comment
from the 59-member PRAVAC. The
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Apr 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
remaining 18 opposing comments were
from other sources. These comments are
posted under Notice No. 71 on the TTB
Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/
wine_rulemaking.shtml.
Supporting Comments
The 19 grape growers and/or wine
producers supporting the establishment
of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural
area agree that the proposed area’s
topography, climate, and soils are
different from the rest of the existing
Paso Robles viticultural area and that
the area is therefore deserving of
separate recognition under the Paso
Robles Westside name.
Doug Beckett, the owner of Peachy
Canyon Winery and the proposed Paso
Robles Westside lead petitioner,
submitted two strongly supportive
comments (numbered by TTB as
comments 55 and 128) for the area’s
establishment. In comment 55, he
largely reiterates the petition’s evidence
and conclusions. He states, for example,
that the soil analysis report included in
the petition found that the ‘‘soils
contained in the Proposed Paso Robles
Westside AVA are unique to the area.’’
In comment 128, Mr. Beckett argues that
the Paso Robles Westside viticultural
area petition does not conflict with the
separate PRAVAC effort to expand the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area
and then sub-divide the resulting larger
Paso Robles viticultural area into 11
smaller viticultural areas.
Other Paso Robles grape growers and
wine producers agree with Mr. Beckett.
For example, Robert Hartenberger of
Midnight Cellars (comment 80) and Bob
Shore of Arroyo Robles Winery
(comment 84) state that the proposed
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area’s
climate, topography, soils, and name
recognition contrast with the east side of
the existing Paso Robles viticultural
area, and the Paso Robles Westside
region is therefore deserving of its own
viticultural area designation.
In addition, some Paso Robles wine
industry members express concern over
the misuse of the ‘‘Westside’’ name.
Noting that his winery uses the
‘‘Westside’’ claim on some wines, Erich
Russell of Rabbit Ridge Winery
(comment 71), states that another
winery uses the ‘‘West side’’ name on a
wine made from non-West side, and
even non-Paso Robles, grapes. He states,
therefore, that TTB should approve the
Westside petition to stop the misuse of
the Paso Robles Westside name. Gary
Conway of Carmody McKnight Estate
Wines (comment 114) notes that the
proposed area’s establishment would
allow those within the area ‘‘to
determine their own viticultural
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
future,’’ and that ‘‘if there are some
within the area who don’t wish to adopt
the name, there is such a simple
solution for them. Don’t use it.’’
The 125 other supportive commenters
include wine consumers familiar with
the Paso Robles viticultural area, as well
as wine distributors, retailers, and sales
personnel. Some comments largely
focus on the distinctive taste of wines
produced on the west side of the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area,
while others note the rolling topography
and distinguishable climate and soils to
the west of the Salinas River. Some
commenters argue that, based on the
100-plus year history of the ‘‘Westside’’
name, recognition of the Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area is long
overdue and that its establishment
would enhance the entire Paso Robles
region’s wine industry. Additional
commenters offer support for evidence
contained in the Westside petition,
including its soil analysis section.
Opposing Comments
As noted above, TTB received 61
comments opposing the establishment
of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural
area. Of those, 43 comments were from
grape growers and/or wine producers
with interests in the existing Paso
Robles viticultural area. In general,
these 43 commenters note the location
of their vineyards and describe
significant variations in climate,
geology, soil, and topography within the
proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area. Some of these
commenters also describe the
viticultural similarities between the
west and east sides of the existing Paso
Robles viticultural area.
The 43 grape growers and/or wine
producer commenters included two
persons who withdrew their names from
the Paso Robles Westside petition and
two persons who were among the
original 1982 Paso Robles viticultural
area petitioners.
Elizabeth Van Steenwyck of Adelaida
Cellars (comment 121) and Justin
Baldwin of Justin Vineyards (comment
124) withdrew their names as
supporting petitioners for the proposed
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area.
After indicating her specific reasons for
her withdrawal of support for the
Westside petition, Ms. Van Steenwyck
concludes: ‘‘The establishment of a Paso
Robles Westside AVA has little, if any,
viticultural relevance, lacks geographic
definition, and will not serve the best
interests of the entire Paso Robles wine
community in the long term.’’ Mr.
Baldwin states that the PRAVAC
proposal ‘‘is more comprehensive and is
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
based on more sound and substantial
scientific, historic, and climatic data.’’
Gary Eberle (comment 86) and
Herman Schwartz (comment 134), who
were original 1982 Paso Robles
viticultural area petitioners, also
submitted comments opposing Notice
No. 71. These commenters note the
diversity of the proposed Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area’s climate and
geography and object to the use of the
Salinas River as its proposed eastern
boundary line. Also, they state that
‘‘Paso Robles Westside,’’ as a
geographical term, could mislead
consumers. Charging that the Paso
Robles Westside petition uses ‘‘cherry
picked’’ data and information, Mr.
Eberle states: ‘‘When we created such a
large and diverse AVA we knew that
down the line there would be a
movement to create smaller AVAs
within the area * * * based on sound
viticultural and scientific information.
Unfortunately, an application for the
Paso Robles Westside AVA has been
filed that is the antithesis of this.’’
Concerning geographical diversity, Mr.
Schwartz remarked: ‘‘Most experienced
wine people in our area are keenly
aware of the vast differences in the
proposed new Westside appellation that
runs the gamut from one of the hottest,
flattest and driest areas in the entire
North County of San Luis Obispo to one
of the more moderate in temperature,
slightly rolling hills and the highest
rainfall in our county, let alone the
varieties of soil types and the quantity
and quality of the water.’’
While most opposing commenters
supported other plans to divide the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area
into smaller viticultural areas, some did
not. For example, Richard Sauret,
president of the Independent Grape
Growers of the Paso Robles Area, a
group of 195 growers, states (comment
213): ‘‘As a native of Paso Robles and a
grape grower for 55 years I didn’t think
I would ever see a political fiasco of this
magnitude in Paso Robles.’’ Mr. Sauret
opposes all efforts to sub-divide the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area,
including the Paso Robles Westside
petition and the petitions submitted by
the PRAVAC.
The PRAVAC submitted a lengthy
opposing comment (comment 98) on
behalf of its 59 grape-grower and winery
members. According to PRAVAC, its
members farm approximately 1,700
acres and own 15 wineries in the
portion of the existing Paso Robles
viticultural area that is west of the
Salinas River. As noted above, the
PRAVAC submitted a petition to TTB to
expand the existing Paso Robles
viticultural area and 11 petitions to sub-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Apr 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
divide the area, as expanded, into
smaller viticultural areas. The PRAVAC
notes that 5 of the 11 proposed smaller
viticultural areas lie wholly or partially
west of the Salinas River, that is, within
the proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area. Two of those proposed
viticultural areas lie on both the east
and west sides of the Salinas River and
thus would overlap the proposed Paso
Robles Westside viticultural area, and
the other three lie wholly within it.
The ‘‘Westside’’ name, according to
the PRAVAC, is not locally or nationally
known to refer to the proposed
viticultural area and is confusing,
misapplied, and inappropriate in the
context of the petition. The ‘‘Westside’’
name, the PRAVAC states, refers to a
much smaller area, limited to a portion
of the City of Paso Robles and the entire
Adelaida District, but not extending to
the northern or southern limits of the
proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area boundary line.
The PRAVAC claims that the Paso
Robles Westside viticultural area
petition lacks adequate scientific
support and justification. The PRAVAC
notes that its research shows that the
climate and geographic features of the
proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area fail to distinguish it
from the Paso Robles area east of the
Salinas River. In support of this
contention, the PRAVAC comment
includes a point-by-point rebuttal of the
Paso Robles Westside petition
researched and written by Dr. Deborah
Elliott-Fisk, an ecology professor at the
University of California, Davis. Dr.
Elliott-Fisk explains that she conducted
recent in-depth scientific research of the
Paso Robles viticultural area that
contributed to the development of the
one expansion petition and the 11 new
establishment petitions submitted by
the PRAVAC.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk argues that the Salinas
River does not divide the existing Paso
Robles viticultural area into two distinct
east-west regions based on climate,
geology, soils, topography, elevation,
landforms, or natural vegetation. She
states that viticultural conditions within
the existing Paso Robles viticultural area
change from north to south instead of
from east to west. Noting that climates
change along gradients in latitude,
longitude, maritime and continental
position, elevation, orographic position,
and other physical parameters, Dr.
Elliott-Fisk states that the existing Paso
Robles viticultural area ‘‘shows
incredible diversity in vineyard
geographics and viticultural
environments, from an almost desert
climate in the north to a maritime
climate in the central portion to a cold,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19919
wet mountain climate to the south.’’ In
addition, she also contends that no soil
series found in the proposed Paso
Robles Westside viticultural area is
unique to that area. Based on her
research, Dr. Elliott-Fisk concludes that
‘‘[t]he proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area makes no sense from a
historical, geographical, or viticultural
perspective’’ and that ‘‘[t]he flawed and
deficient petition does not support the
establishment of the proposed Paso
Robles Westside AVA.’’
The PRAVAC comment thus urges
TTB to reject the Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area petition. As an
alternative, PRAVAC suggests TTB
consolidate into one public notice the
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area
petition with the 12 PRAVAC petitions
to expand and sub-divide the existing
Paso Robles viticultural area. The
commenter also requested a public
hearing if TTB decides to proceed with
rulemaking for the Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area.
Other opposing grape growers and
wine producers also comment that the
supporting data for the Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area petition is, at
times, inadequate or wrong. They
believe that the scientific data provided
in the petition does not support
establishment of the Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area. They also
note that the climate, soils, elevation,
natural vegetation, and other
geographical features of the proposed
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area
fail to distinguish it from other parts of
the larger Paso Robles viticultural area.
Further, some commenters state that the
cooling marine influence coming
through the Templeton Gap affects
certain portions of the proposed
viticultural area more than other areas,
and that the marine influence
significantly affects some portions of the
Paso Robles viticultural area east of the
Salinas River.
According to comments of some
opposing wine industry members, the
Salinas River, as the eastern boundary
line for the proposed Paso Robles
Westside boundary line, is an oversimplification of regional viticultural
differences that could have long-range
negative implications for other Paso
Robles viticultural area petitions. Other
commenters claim the ‘‘Westside’’ name
is ambiguous or vague and could
confuse and mislead consumers.
The 18 opposing commenters who are
neither grape growers nor wine
producers include wine consumers,
local residents, and scientists with
expertise in climate, soil and geology.
Some of these commenters describe the
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
19920
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
petition as a wine industry marketing
effort. A local resident states that the
proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area ‘‘includes a wide
diversity of land, climate, geology and
soils as to be a completely arbitrary
division.’’ Other commenters contend,
similar to the PRAVAC, that the
recognized ‘‘west side’’ of the Paso
Robles region encompasses only a
western portion of the City of Paso
Robles and the Adelaida District, not the
significantly larger proposed Paso
Robles Westside viticultural area.
Dr. Thomas Rice, a certified
professional soil scientist who provided
soil information for the Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area petition,
submitted two comments opposing
Notice No. 71 (comments 94 and 129).
In his opposing comments, Dr. Rice
states that some of his soils information
‘‘has been inaccurately quoted’’ and that
‘‘some erroneous conclusions regarding
the soils in the Paso Robles AVA have
been stated in the final petition.’’ He
adds that ‘‘not a single soil series
mapped by the USDA that occurs within
the proposed Paso Robles Westside
AVA is unique to that area.’’ He
concludes by urging TTB ‘‘to reject the
Paso Robles Westside petition based on
its inaccurate, misleading and false
statements related to topography and
soils diversity within the larger Paso
Robles AVA.’’
Opposing commenter Richard
Hoenisch (comment 112), a plant
pathologist at the University of
California, Davis, and the education
director for the western region of the
National Plant Diagnostic Network,
explains that he served for six years as
the founding manager of the Tablas
Creek Winery in Paso Robles. Mr.
Hoenisch states that, based on his past
and current experience and knowledge,
the proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area ‘‘includes too many
different geologies, soil types, and
micro-climates.’’ Mr. Hoenisch
concludes that the Paso Robles area
contains many distinct and excellent
potential viticultural area sites.
Mr. Donald Schucraft, a certified
consulting meteorologist with the
Western Weather Group, explains in his
opposing comment (comment 122) that
in the mid-1990’s he led a team of
meteorologists and physical scientists
that established a network of automated
weather stations in the Paso Robles
region, and that these stations continue
to provide key information for localized
Paso Robles weather forecasts. Based on
the data from these stations, Mr.
Schucraft states that the Salinas River
does not provide a suitable boundary
line for the many different
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Apr 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
microclimates found in the Paso Robles
viticultural area. He notes that there are
distinct microclimates to the west of the
Salinas River within the proposed Paso
Robles Westside viticultural area, and
that these microclimates change from
north to south as well as to east to west.
Seasonal rainfall, according to Mr.
Schucraft, varies from 11 to 12 inches in
the northern-most part of the proposed
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area to
27 to 28 inches in the southern-most
part. Also, air temperatures, influenced
by the marine air passing through the
Templeton Gap, and wind speeds,
influenced by the Salinas River Valley
Basin, vary widely within the proposed
viticultural area. Mr. Schucraft
concludes that observed weather in the
Paso Robles region fails to define the
proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area as a single viticultural
region, but instead supports the
existence of multiple viticultural
regions within the existing Paso Robles
viticultural area.
on July 15, 2008 (see Notice No. 85, 73
FR 40474).
TTB Finding
TTB notes that there is a marked lack
of unanimity among the commenters
concerning the appropriateness of
establishing the proposed Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area. While
substantial petition evidence and a large
number of comments support the
establishment of the proposed
viticultural area, we also received a
significant number of comments setting
forth information that refutes, or is
otherwise inconsistent with that
petition evidence. Some of those
comments challenge the
appropriateness of the Paso Robles
Westside name. Other commenters,
including scientific experts, contradict
the geographical feature evidence
presented in the petition and relied
upon by TTB in Notice No. 71 as a basis
for proposing the establishment of the
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area.
Given the conflicting information
before us, we cannot conclude that a
delimited grape-growing region exists
that is recognized by the name ‘‘Paso
Robles Westside,’’ or that the area
described in Notice No. 71 is
distinguishable by geographical
features. Accordingly, TTB hereby
withdraws its proposal to establish the
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area.
With regard to the petitions submitted
by the PRAVAC to establish 11 smaller
viticultural areas within the Paso Robles
viticultural area, TTB will review those
11 petitions independently from this
regulatory action. A notice regarding the
PRAVAC proposal to expand the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area
was published in the Federal Register
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Signed: February 12, 2009.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: February 27, 2009.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. E9–9855 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[USCG–2009–0110]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Thunder on Niagara,
Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY
ACTION:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes
establishment of a safety zone for a
powerboat race in the Captain of the
Port Buffalo zone. This proposed rule is
intended to restrict vessels from areas of
water during events that pose a hazard
to public safety. The safety zone
established by this proposed rule is
necessary to protect spectators,
participants, and vessels from the
hazards associated with a powerboat
race.
DATES: Comments and related materials
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before June 29, 2009. Requests for
public meetings must be received by the
Coast Guard on or before May 29, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2009–0110 using one of the following
methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
E:\FR\FM\30APP1.SGM
30APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19917-19920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9855]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[TTB Docket No. 2007-0060; Notice No. 94; Re: Notice Nos. 71 and 72]
RIN 1513-AB27
Proposed Establishment of the Paso Robles Westside Viticultural
Area (2006R-087P)
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau announces the
withdrawal of its proposal to establish the Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area within the existing Paso Robles viticultural area in
San Luis Obispo County, California. We take this action because, given
the conflicting information before us, we cannot conclude that a
delimited grape-growing region exists that is recognized by the name
Paso Robles Westside.
DATES: Notice No. 71 is withdrawn as of April 30, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St.,
158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415-271-1254.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the
regulations promulgated under the FAA Act.
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) sets
forth standards for petitions for the establishment of viticultural
areas and 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 geographic 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 geographic features, such as
climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the
proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
[[Page 19918]]
A description of the specific boundary of the proposed
viticultural area, based on features found 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.
Publication of Notice No. 71
On January 24, 2007, TTB published Notice No. 71, a notice of
proposed rulemaking, in the Federal Register (72 FR 3088) regarding the
proposed establishment of the ``Paso Robles Westside'' American
viticultural area in northern San Luis Obispo County, California. We
undertook that action in response to a petition filed on behalf of 21
vintners and grape growers with interests in the proposed viticultural
area. As outlined in Notice No. 71, the proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area lay west of the Salinas River but entirely within the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area (27 CFR 9.84), which in turn is
entirely within the existing, multi-county Central Coast viticultural
area (27 CFR 9.75).
Comments on the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area
were originally due on or before March 26, 2007. However, on March 23,
2007, in response to a request from other Paso Robles wine industry
members, we extended the comment period for Notice No. 71 until April
24, 2007 (see Notice No. 72 published in the Federal Register at 72 FR
13720 on March 23, 2007).
Shortly before publication of Notice No. 71, TTB received 12
petitions from the Paso Robles AVA Committee (PRAVAC), one of which
proposed the expansion of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area
and 11 of which proposed the establishment of 11 smaller viticultural
areas within the expanded Paso Robles viticultural area.
Comments Received in Response to Notice No. 71
TTB received 220 comments in response to Notice No. 71. Of those,
144 supported the establishment of the proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area, 61 opposed it, and, of the remaining 15 commenters,
2 requested an extension of time to comment and 13 provided comments
that could not be described as clearly supporting or opposing the
proposal. The 144 supporting comments included 19 from grape growers
and/or wine producers and 125 from other sources. Of the 61 opposing
comments, 43 were from grape growers and/or wine producers, including a
single comment from the 59-member PRAVAC. The remaining 18 opposing
comments were from other sources. These comments are posted under
Notice No. 71 on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.
Supporting Comments
The 19 grape growers and/or wine producers supporting the
establishment of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area agree that
the proposed area's topography, climate, and soils are different from
the rest of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area and that the
area is therefore deserving of separate recognition under the Paso
Robles Westside name.
Doug Beckett, the owner of Peachy Canyon Winery and the proposed
Paso Robles Westside lead petitioner, submitted two strongly supportive
comments (numbered by TTB as comments 55 and 128) for the area's
establishment. In comment 55, he largely reiterates the petition's
evidence and conclusions. He states, for example, that the soil
analysis report included in the petition found that the ``soils
contained in the Proposed Paso Robles Westside AVA are unique to the
area.'' In comment 128, Mr. Beckett argues that the Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area petition does not conflict with the separate
PRAVAC effort to expand the existing Paso Robles viticultural area and
then sub-divide the resulting larger Paso Robles viticultural area into
11 smaller viticultural areas.
Other Paso Robles grape growers and wine producers agree with Mr.
Beckett. For example, Robert Hartenberger of Midnight Cellars (comment
80) and Bob Shore of Arroyo Robles Winery (comment 84) state that the
proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area's climate, topography,
soils, and name recognition contrast with the east side of the existing
Paso Robles viticultural area, and the Paso Robles Westside region is
therefore deserving of its own viticultural area designation.
In addition, some Paso Robles wine industry members express concern
over the misuse of the ``Westside'' name. Noting that his winery uses
the ``Westside'' claim on some wines, Erich Russell of Rabbit Ridge
Winery (comment 71), states that another winery uses the ``West side''
name on a wine made from non-West side, and even non-Paso Robles,
grapes. He states, therefore, that TTB should approve the Westside
petition to stop the misuse of the Paso Robles Westside name. Gary
Conway of Carmody McKnight Estate Wines (comment 114) notes that the
proposed area's establishment would allow those within the area ``to
determine their own viticultural future,'' and that ``if there are some
within the area who don't wish to adopt the name, there is such a
simple solution for them. Don't use it.''
The 125 other supportive commenters include wine consumers familiar
with the Paso Robles viticultural area, as well as wine distributors,
retailers, and sales personnel. Some comments largely focus on the
distinctive taste of wines produced on the west side of the existing
Paso Robles viticultural area, while others note the rolling topography
and distinguishable climate and soils to the west of the Salinas River.
Some commenters argue that, based on the 100-plus year history of the
``Westside'' name, recognition of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural
area is long overdue and that its establishment would enhance the
entire Paso Robles region's wine industry. Additional commenters offer
support for evidence contained in the Westside petition, including its
soil analysis section.
Opposing Comments
As noted above, TTB received 61 comments opposing the establishment
of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. Of those, 43 comments
were from grape growers and/or wine producers with interests in the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area. In general, these 43 commenters
note the location of their vineyards and describe significant
variations in climate, geology, soil, and topography within the
proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. Some of these
commenters also describe the viticultural similarities between the west
and east sides of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area.
The 43 grape growers and/or wine producer commenters included two
persons who withdrew their names from the Paso Robles Westside petition
and two persons who were among the original 1982 Paso Robles
viticultural area petitioners.
Elizabeth Van Steenwyck of Adelaida Cellars (comment 121) and
Justin Baldwin of Justin Vineyards (comment 124) withdrew their names
as supporting petitioners for the proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area. After indicating her specific reasons for her
withdrawal of support for the Westside petition, Ms. Van Steenwyck
concludes: ``The establishment of a Paso Robles Westside AVA has
little, if any, viticultural relevance, lacks geographic definition,
and will not serve the best interests of the entire Paso Robles wine
community in the long term.'' Mr. Baldwin states that the PRAVAC
proposal ``is more comprehensive and is
[[Page 19919]]
based on more sound and substantial scientific, historic, and climatic
data.''
Gary Eberle (comment 86) and Herman Schwartz (comment 134), who
were original 1982 Paso Robles viticultural area petitioners, also
submitted comments opposing Notice No. 71. These commenters note the
diversity of the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area's
climate and geography and object to the use of the Salinas River as its
proposed eastern boundary line. Also, they state that ``Paso Robles
Westside,'' as a geographical term, could mislead consumers. Charging
that the Paso Robles Westside petition uses ``cherry picked'' data and
information, Mr. Eberle states: ``When we created such a large and
diverse AVA we knew that down the line there would be a movement to
create smaller AVAs within the area * * * based on sound viticultural
and scientific information. Unfortunately, an application for the Paso
Robles Westside AVA has been filed that is the antithesis of this.''
Concerning geographical diversity, Mr. Schwartz remarked: ``Most
experienced wine people in our area are keenly aware of the vast
differences in the proposed new Westside appellation that runs the
gamut from one of the hottest, flattest and driest areas in the entire
North County of San Luis Obispo to one of the more moderate in
temperature, slightly rolling hills and the highest rainfall in our
county, let alone the varieties of soil types and the quantity and
quality of the water.''
While most opposing commenters supported other plans to divide the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area into smaller viticultural areas,
some did not. For example, Richard Sauret, president of the Independent
Grape Growers of the Paso Robles Area, a group of 195 growers, states
(comment 213): ``As a native of Paso Robles and a grape grower for 55
years I didn't think I would ever see a political fiasco of this
magnitude in Paso Robles.'' Mr. Sauret opposes all efforts to sub-
divide the existing Paso Robles viticultural area, including the Paso
Robles Westside petition and the petitions submitted by the PRAVAC.
The PRAVAC submitted a lengthy opposing comment (comment 98) on
behalf of its 59 grape-grower and winery members. According to PRAVAC,
its members farm approximately 1,700 acres and own 15 wineries in the
portion of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area that is west of
the Salinas River. As noted above, the PRAVAC submitted a petition to
TTB to expand the existing Paso Robles viticultural area and 11
petitions to sub-divide the area, as expanded, into smaller
viticultural areas. The PRAVAC notes that 5 of the 11 proposed smaller
viticultural areas lie wholly or partially west of the Salinas River,
that is, within the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area.
Two of those proposed viticultural areas lie on both the east and west
sides of the Salinas River and thus would overlap the proposed Paso
Robles Westside viticultural area, and the other three lie wholly
within it.
The ``Westside'' name, according to the PRAVAC, is not locally or
nationally known to refer to the proposed viticultural area and is
confusing, misapplied, and inappropriate in the context of the
petition. The ``Westside'' name, the PRAVAC states, refers to a much
smaller area, limited to a portion of the City of Paso Robles and the
entire Adelaida District, but not extending to the northern or southern
limits of the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area boundary
line.
The PRAVAC claims that the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area
petition lacks adequate scientific support and justification. The
PRAVAC notes that its research shows that the climate and geographic
features of the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area fail to
distinguish it from the Paso Robles area east of the Salinas River. In
support of this contention, the PRAVAC comment includes a point-by-
point rebuttal of the Paso Robles Westside petition researched and
written by Dr. Deborah Elliott-Fisk, an ecology professor at the
University of California, Davis. Dr. Elliott-Fisk explains that she
conducted recent in-depth scientific research of the Paso Robles
viticultural area that contributed to the development of the one
expansion petition and the 11 new establishment petitions submitted by
the PRAVAC.
Dr. Elliott-Fisk argues that the Salinas River does not divide the
existing Paso Robles viticultural area into two distinct east-west
regions based on climate, geology, soils, topography, elevation,
landforms, or natural vegetation. She states that viticultural
conditions within the existing Paso Robles viticultural area change
from north to south instead of from east to west. Noting that climates
change along gradients in latitude, longitude, maritime and continental
position, elevation, orographic position, and other physical
parameters, Dr. Elliott-Fisk states that the existing Paso Robles
viticultural area ``shows incredible diversity in vineyard geographics
and viticultural environments, from an almost desert climate in the
north to a maritime climate in the central portion to a cold, wet
mountain climate to the south.'' In addition, she also contends that no
soil series found in the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural
area is unique to that area. Based on her research, Dr. Elliott-Fisk
concludes that ``[t]he proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area
makes no sense from a historical, geographical, or viticultural
perspective'' and that ``[t]he flawed and deficient petition does not
support the establishment of the proposed Paso Robles Westside AVA.''
The PRAVAC comment thus urges TTB to reject the Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area petition. As an alternative, PRAVAC suggests
TTB consolidate into one public notice the Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area petition with the 12 PRAVAC petitions to expand and
sub-divide the existing Paso Robles viticultural area. The commenter
also requested a public hearing if TTB decides to proceed with
rulemaking for the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area.
Other opposing grape growers and wine producers also comment that
the supporting data for the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area
petition is, at times, inadequate or wrong. They believe that the
scientific data provided in the petition does not support establishment
of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. They also note that the
climate, soils, elevation, natural vegetation, and other geographical
features of the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area fail to
distinguish it from other parts of the larger Paso Robles viticultural
area. Further, some commenters state that the cooling marine influence
coming through the Templeton Gap affects certain portions of the
proposed viticultural area more than other areas, and that the marine
influence significantly affects some portions of the Paso Robles
viticultural area east of the Salinas River.
According to comments of some opposing wine industry members, the
Salinas River, as the eastern boundary line for the proposed Paso
Robles Westside boundary line, is an over-simplification of regional
viticultural differences that could have long-range negative
implications for other Paso Robles viticultural area petitions. Other
commenters claim the ``Westside'' name is ambiguous or vague and could
confuse and mislead consumers.
The 18 opposing commenters who are neither grape growers nor wine
producers include wine consumers, local residents, and scientists with
expertise in climate, soil and geology. Some of these commenters
describe the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area
[[Page 19920]]
petition as a wine industry marketing effort. A local resident states
that the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area ``includes a
wide diversity of land, climate, geology and soils as to be a
completely arbitrary division.'' Other commenters contend, similar to
the PRAVAC, that the recognized ``west side'' of the Paso Robles region
encompasses only a western portion of the City of Paso Robles and the
Adelaida District, not the significantly larger proposed Paso Robles
Westside viticultural area.
Dr. Thomas Rice, a certified professional soil scientist who
provided soil information for the Paso Robles Westside viticultural
area petition, submitted two comments opposing Notice No. 71 (comments
94 and 129). In his opposing comments, Dr. Rice states that some of his
soils information ``has been inaccurately quoted'' and that ``some
erroneous conclusions regarding the soils in the Paso Robles AVA have
been stated in the final petition.'' He adds that ``not a single soil
series mapped by the USDA that occurs within the proposed Paso Robles
Westside AVA is unique to that area.'' He concludes by urging TTB ``to
reject the Paso Robles Westside petition based on its inaccurate,
misleading and false statements related to topography and soils
diversity within the larger Paso Robles AVA.''
Opposing commenter Richard Hoenisch (comment 112), a plant
pathologist at the University of California, Davis, and the education
director for the western region of the National Plant Diagnostic
Network, explains that he served for six years as the founding manager
of the Tablas Creek Winery in Paso Robles. Mr. Hoenisch states that,
based on his past and current experience and knowledge, the proposed
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area ``includes too many different
geologies, soil types, and micro-climates.'' Mr. Hoenisch concludes
that the Paso Robles area contains many distinct and excellent
potential viticultural area sites.
Mr. Donald Schucraft, a certified consulting meteorologist with the
Western Weather Group, explains in his opposing comment (comment 122)
that in the mid-1990's he led a team of meteorologists and physical
scientists that established a network of automated weather stations in
the Paso Robles region, and that these stations continue to provide key
information for localized Paso Robles weather forecasts. Based on the
data from these stations, Mr. Schucraft states that the Salinas River
does not provide a suitable boundary line for the many different
microclimates found in the Paso Robles viticultural area. He notes that
there are distinct microclimates to the west of the Salinas River
within the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, and that
these microclimates change from north to south as well as to east to
west.
Seasonal rainfall, according to Mr. Schucraft, varies from 11 to 12
inches in the northern-most part of the proposed Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area to 27 to 28 inches in the southern-most part. Also,
air temperatures, influenced by the marine air passing through the
Templeton Gap, and wind speeds, influenced by the Salinas River Valley
Basin, vary widely within the proposed viticultural area. Mr. Schucraft
concludes that observed weather in the Paso Robles region fails to
define the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area as a single
viticultural region, but instead supports the existence of multiple
viticultural regions within the existing Paso Robles viticultural area.
TTB Finding
TTB notes that there is a marked lack of unanimity among the
commenters concerning the appropriateness of establishing the proposed
Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. While substantial petition
evidence and a large number of comments support the establishment of
the proposed viticultural area, we also received a significant number
of comments setting forth information that refutes, or is otherwise
inconsistent with that petition evidence. Some of those comments
challenge the appropriateness of the Paso Robles Westside name. Other
commenters, including scientific experts, contradict the geographical
feature evidence presented in the petition and relied upon by TTB in
Notice No. 71 as a basis for proposing the establishment of the Paso
Robles Westside viticultural area.
Given the conflicting information before us, we cannot conclude
that a delimited grape-growing region exists that is recognized by the
name ``Paso Robles Westside,'' or that the area described in Notice No.
71 is distinguishable by geographical features. Accordingly, TTB hereby
withdraws its proposal to establish the Paso Robles Westside
viticultural area.
With regard to the petitions submitted by the PRAVAC to establish
11 smaller viticultural areas within the Paso Robles viticultural area,
TTB will review those 11 petitions independently from this regulatory
action. A notice regarding the PRAVAC proposal to expand the existing
Paso Robles viticultural area was published in the Federal Register on
July 15, 2008 (see Notice No. 85, 73 FR 40474).
Signed: February 12, 2009.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: February 27, 2009.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. E9-9855 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
