Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9831 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 27 CFR, 

chapter I, part 9, as follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

2. Section 9.28 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 9.28 Santa Maria Valley. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Santa 

Maria Valley’’. For purposes of part 4 of 

this chapter, ‘‘Santa Maria Valley’’ is a 

term of viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The six United 

States Geological Survey maps used to 

determine the boundary of the Santa 

Maria Valley viticultural area are titled: 

(1) Orcutt Quadrangle, CaliforniaSanta Barbara Co., 7.5 minute series, 

1959, photorevised 1967 and 1974, 

photoinspected 1978; 

(2) Santa Maria Quadrangle, 

California, 7.5 minute series, 1959, 

photorevised 1982; 

(3) ‘‘San Luis Obispo’’, N.I. 10–3, 

series V 502, scale 1: 250,000; 

(4) ‘‘Santa Maria’’, N.I. 10–6, 9, series 

V 502, scale 1: 250,000; 

(5) Foxen Canyon Quadrangle, 

California-Santa Barbara Co., 7.5-minute 

series, 1995; and 

(6) Sisquoc Quadrangle, CaliforniaSanta Barbara Co., 7.5 minute series, 

1959, photoinspected 1974. 

(c) Boundary. The Santa Maria Valley 

viticultural area is located in Santa 

Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, 

California. The boundary is as follows: 

(1) The point of beginning is on the 

Orcutt quadrangle map at the 

intersection of U.S. Route 101 and Clark 

Avenue, section 18 north boundary line, 

T9N/R33W, then proceed generally 

north along U.S. Route 101 

approximately 10 miles onto the Santa 

Maria quadrangle map to its intersection 

with State Route 166 (east), T10N/ 

R34W; then 

(2) Proceed generally northeast along 

State Route 166 (east) onto the San Luis 

Obispo N.I. 10–3 map to its intersection 

with the section line southwest of 

Chimney Canyon, T11N/R32W; then 

(3) Proceed south in a straight line 

onto the Santa Maria N.I. 10–6 map to 

the 3,015-foot summit of Los Coches 

Mountain; then 

(4) Proceed southeast in a straight line 

onto the Foxen Canyon quadrangle map 

to the 2,822-foot summit of Bone 

Mountain, T9N/R32W; then 

(5) Proceed south-southwest in a 

straight line approximately 6 miles to 

the line’s intersection with secondary 

highways Foxen Canyon Road and 

Alisos Canyon Road, T8N/R32W; then 

(6) Proceed west-northwest in a 

straight line approximately 6 miles onto 

the Sisquoc quadrangle map to the Gato 

Ridge Oil Field and the section 4 

southeast corner, T8N/R32W; then 

(7) Proceed west-northwest in a 

straight line approximately 6.2 miles, 

crossing over the Solomon Hills, to its 

intersection with U.S. Route 101 and a 

private, unnamed light-duty road that 

meanders east into the Cat Canyon Oil 

Field, T9N/R33W; then 

(8) Proceed north 3.75 miles along 

U.S. Route 101 onto the Orcutt 

quadrangle map and return to the point 

of beginning. 

Signed: February 5, 2010. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4569 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2010–0002; Notice No. 

104] 

RIN 1513–AB65 

Proposed Renaming of the YamhillCarlton District Viticultural Area 

(2008R–305P) 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau proposes to rename 

the established Yamhill-Carlton District 

viticultural area located in Yamhill and 

Washington Counties, Oregon, as the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ viticultural area. The 

size and boundary description of the 

renamed viticultural area would remain 

the same. 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. We invite comments on 

this proposed addition to our 

regulations. 

DATES: We must receive written 

comments on or before May 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on 

this notice to one of the following 

addresses: 

• http://www.regulations.gov (via the 

online comment form for this notice as 

posted within Docket No. TTB–2010– 

0002 at ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal erulemaking portal); 

• Director, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, 

Washington, DC 20044–4412; or 

• Hand delivery/courier in lieu of 

mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 

200–E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this notice for specific instructions and 

requirements for submitting comments, 

and for information on how to request 

a public hearing. 

You may view copies of this notice, 

selected supporting materials, and any 

comments we receive about this 

proposal at http://www.regulations.gov 

within Docket No. TTB–2010–0002. A 

link to that docket is posted on the TTB 

Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice 

No. 104. You also may view copies of 

this notice, all related petitions, maps, 

or other supporting materials, and any 

comments we receive about this 

proposal by appointment at the TTB 

Information Resource Center, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 

Please call 202–453–2270 to make an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. 

Sutton, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 

158, Petaluma, CA 94952; phone 415– 

271–1254. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

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 

requires that these regulations, 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 geographic 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; 

• 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. 

Establishment of the Yamhill-Carlton 

District Viticultural Area 

In 2002, TTB’s predecessor Agency, 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 

Firearms, received petitions from Mr. 

Alex Sokol-Blosser, Secretary of the 

North Willamette Valley [American 

Viticultural Area] Group, and from Mr. 

Ken Wright, on behalf of certain grape 

growers, to establish a new viticultural 

area to be called the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District.’’ Located in northwestern 

Oregon, the proposed Yamhill-Carlton 

District was approximately 35 miles 

southwest of Portland, Oregon, and 25 

miles from the Pacific Ocean, in 

Yamhill and Washington Counties, 

Oregon, and entirely within the larger 

Willamette Valley viticultural area (27 

CFR 9.90). 

On October 7, 2003, TTB published in 

the Federal Register (68 FR 57845) 

Notice No. 19, proposing the 

establishment of the Yamhill-Carlton 

District viticultural area. In response to 

that notice, the only comment TTB 

received was in support of the proposed 

establishment. On December 9, 2004, 

TTB published in the Federal Register 

(69 FR 71372) Treasury Decision (T.D.) 

TTB–20, establishing the YamhillCarlton District viticultural area (27 CFR 

9.183) as originally proposed. 

The T.D. states that the YamhillCarlton District viticultural area 

boundary line surrounds the towns of 

Yamhill and Carlton, which lie 3 miles 

apart along Route 47 in Yamhill County. 

In the ‘‘Name Evidence’’ section, it states 

that the first time the two names were 

used together was in the 1853 

establishment of the Yamhill-Carlton 

Pioneer Cemetery. The cemetery is 

identified on the USGS Carlton 

quadrangle map (published in 1957; 

revised in 1992). Local usage of the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ name has continued 

into the modern era. For example, in 

1955, the Yamhill-Carlton Union High 

School was established in the YamhillCarlton School District. 

Petition To Change the Yamhill-Carlton 

District Viticultural Area Name 

In 2008, Mr. Ken Wright, of Ken 

Wright Cellars, submitted a petition to 

TTB to change the name of the 

viticultural area from ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District’’ to ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton.’’ In the 

current petition, Mr. Wright asserts that 

when the viticultural area was originally 

proposed ‘‘[t]he inclusion of the word 

‘District’ was completely discretionary 

and added only to enforce the idea of 

the AVA [American viticultural area] 

being a regionalized area.’’ Further, he 

states that ‘‘[h]istorically the area has 

always been referred to as simply 

‘Yamhill-Carlton’ Additionally, the 

length of the current name is very 

difficult to fit on a [wine] label. Many 

wineries have found it impossible, given 

their current label graphics, to utilize 

the name.’’ 

Many others joined Mr. Wright, 

writing letters included with the 

petition, in support of renaming the 

Yamhill-Carlton District viticultural 

area as the Yamhill-Carlton viticultural 

area. Kathie Oriet, Mayor of the City of 

Carlton, Oregon, wrote, ‘‘As Mayor of 

the small city of Carlton, I feel the 

viticultural area designation should 

represent the more commonly known 

name of Yamhill-Carlton. Many area 

joint ventures are known as YamhillCarlton in both Yamhill and Carlton, 

including the local school district, local 

sports groups and even the community 

luncheon group.’’ Laurent Montalieu, 

winemaker at Solena Cellars, stated, 

‘‘Historically, the area has been more 

commonly referred to [as] YamhillCarlton rather than the Yamhill-Carlton 

District, as well as the wines.’’ Mr. 

Mantalieu also noted that a change to 

the shorter ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ would be 

helpful in printing [wine] labels. David 

Grooters, owner of Carlton Cellars, 

explained, ‘‘The area is always referred 

to as Yamhill-Carlton. As in: ‘I went to 

Yamhill-Carlton High School,’ or ‘I grew 

up in Yamhill-Carlton.’ The simpler 

Yamhill-Carlton AVA [name] would be 

much preferable for use in our labeling 

and marketing materials.’’ Brian 

O’Donnell of Belle Pente Vineyard and 

Winery stated that the region is more 

generally known as ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton,’’ 

not ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District * * *. I 

believe that there is a broad consensus 

with the Yamhill-Carlton winegrower 

community that making this change is 

the right thing to do, and I hope that the 

TTB will be able to take action.’’ Finally, 

Jacki Bessler of Barbara Thomas Wines 

stated that shortening the name ‘‘will 

greatly impact our ability to attractively 

place the AVA designation on our label. 

Perhaps more important, however, is 

that by adding the word ‘District’ to 

Yamhill-Carlton, we have actually 

moved away [from] historical and 

geographic accuracy. I personally know 

of no other geographic, public, historic, 

or other Yamhill-Carlton name that has 

the term ‘district’ attached. We are 

known, simply, by Yamhill-Carlton.’’ 

Name Evidence 

TTB notes that the original 2002 

petition to establish the Yamhill-Carlton 

District viticultural area included 

entries in the local telephone book for 

the Yamhill-Carlton School District and 

the Yamhill-Carlton High School. 

The current petition provides several 

recent examples of local usage of the 

Yamhill-Carlton name without the word 

‘‘District.’’ On March 17, 2007, the 

Community Press newspaper ran an 

advertisement for a dance sponsored by 

the Yamhill-Carlton Booster Club at the 

Yamhill-Carlton High School cafeteria. 

The Lincoln County School District, 

Boys Basketball, online schedule 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9833 

(accessed February 11, 2008) showed 

that the Yamhill-Carlton Tournament 

had been scheduled for November 30 

and December 1, 2007. According to the 

petition, The Oregonian, a newspaper 

published in Portland, reported 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 6, Seaside 5’’ in prep 

baseball (date unknown). A printed 

flyer, distributed by the Yamhill-Carlton 

Anti-Drug Coalition to announce it was 

to meet on January 25th [2008] at 7:00 

p.m., was addressed to ‘‘Dear YamhillCarlton Community Partner.’’ On 

February 11, 2008, ‘‘The Statesman 

Journal’’ reported biographical 

information online about Ed Glad, 

candidate for State Representative and 

formerly a member of the YamhillCarlton High School Site Council. 

Additional examples of the use of the 

Yamhill-Carlton name provided with 

the petition include the following: (1) 

An e-mail announcing the YamhillCarlton Community Luncheon; (2) a 

brown bag lunch event with the guest 

speakers being the police chiefs of 

Yamhill and Carlton, February 12, 2008, 

at the Yamhill City Hall; (3) a June 1, 

2008, photograph showing the sign for 

the ‘‘Historic Yamhill-Carlton Pioneer 

Memorial Cemetery, Established 1853’’; 

and (4) a listing for the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

FFA Alumni’’ with the Oregon Future 

Farmers of America Association. 

Search for the Term ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ 

A TTB query of the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ 

name on the USGS Geographic Names 

Information System (GNIS) database 

yielded no hits for the exact ‘‘YamhillCarlton’’ name usage. However, our 

query of the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ name 

using an Internet search engine yielded 

44,000 results, a sampling of which 

reference the existing Yamhill-Carlton 

District viticultural area within the 

general area of the Yamhill-Carlton 

region in northwest Oregon. 

TTB Determination 

TTB concludes that this petition to 

rename the Yamhill-Carlton District 

viticultural area as the Yamhill-Carlton 

viticultural area merits consideration 

and public comment as invited in this 

notice. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. If we 

approve this proposed viticultural area 

name change, the new name, ‘‘YamhillCarlton,’’ will be recognized as the name 

of the viticultural area. This name 

change will affect vintners who 

currently use the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District’’ name as an appellation of 

origin because only the approved 

viticultural name may be so used. Under 

27 CFR 4.39(i)(3), ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ has 

been recognized as a term of viticultural 

significance by TTB since the 

establishment of the Yamhill-Carlton 

District AVA. Accordingly, dropping 

‘‘District’’ from the viticultural area 

name will not change the viticultural 

significance of the term ‘‘YamhillCarlton.’’ 

For a wine to be labeled with a 

viticultural area name or with a brand 

name that includes a viticultural area 

name or other term identified as being 

viticulturally significant in part 9 of the 

TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of 

the wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name or other term, and the wine 

must meet the other conditions listed in 

27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not 

eligible for labeling with the viticultural 

area name or other viticulturally 

significant term and that name or term 

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 

or other term of viticultural significance 

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 or other term of viticultural 

significance that was used as a brand 

name on a label approved before July 7, 

1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. 

Transition Period for ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District’’ Labels 

If we adopt a final rule renaming this 

viticultural area, under the proposed 

regulatory text, current holders of labels 

that were approved before the effective 

date of the final rule that use the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ name to 

designate a viticultural area will be 

permitted to use those approved labels 

during a 2-year transition period. At the 

end of the 2-year period, holders of 

approved ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ 

wine labels must discontinue their use, 

as their certificates of label approval 

would be revoked by operation of the 

final rule. (See 27 CFR 13.51 and 

13.72(a)(2).) The proposed regulatory 

text includes a statement to this effect 

as a new paragraph (d) in § 9.183. We 

believe the 2-year period will provide 

such label holders with adequate time to 

use up their supply of previously 

approved labels. 

TTB notes that label holders who 

continue to use labels showing the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ name during 

the transition period also may apply for 

Certificates of Label Approval with the 

Yamhill-Carlton name, and use such 

labels, if approved. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

We invite comments from interested 

members of the public on the 

appropriateness of changing the name of 

the existing ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ 

viticultural area to ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton,’’ 

and the 2-year transition period. We are 

particularly interested in comments on 

any possible effects that this name 

change would have on label holders 

using the Yamhill-Carlton District 

appellation of origin. We are also 

interested in comments regarding any 

negative economic impact which might 

result from the proposed change in the 

name of the viticultural area, including 

whether a transition period is necessary 

to alleviate the economic impact, 

whether 2 years constitute the 

appropriate length of time for a 

transition period in order to alleviate 

the economic impact, or whether a 

transition period may not be effective in 

alleviating such impact. If a transition 

period would not be effective or if there 

are other valid reasons that are relevant 

to this rulemaking, we are interested in 

comments as to whether both ‘‘YamhillCarlton District’’ and ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ 

should be the names of the viticultural 

area. 

Submitting Comments 

You may submit comments on this 

notice by using one of the following 

three methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You 

may send comments via the online 

comment form posted with this notice 

in Docket No. TTB–2010–0002 on 

‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal erulemaking portal, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available under Notice 

No. 104 on the TTB Web site at 

http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental 

files may be attached to comments 

submitted via Regulations.gov. For 

complete instructions on how to use 

Regulations.gov, visit the site and click 

on ‘‘User Guide’’ under ‘‘How to Use this 

Site.’’ 

• U.S. Mail: You may send comments 

via postal mail to the Director, 

Regulations and Rulings Division, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, 

DC 20044–4412. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: You may 

hand-carry your comments or have them 

hand-carried to the Alcohol and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
9834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 42 / Thursday, March 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Suite 200–E, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this notice. 

Your comments must reference Notice 

No. 104 and include your name and 

mailing address. Your comments also 

must be made in English, be legible, and 

be written in language acceptable for 

public disclosure. We do not 

acknowledge receipt of comments, and 

we consider all comments as originals. 

If you are commenting on behalf of an 

association, business, or other entity, 

your comment must include the entity’s 

name as well as your name and position 

title. If you comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, please enter the 

entity’s name in the ‘‘Organization’’ 

blank of the comment form. If you 

comment via mail, please submit your 

entity’s comment on letterhead. 

You may also write to the 

Administrator before the comment 

closing date to ask for a public hearing. 

The Administrator reserves the right to 

determine whether to hold a public 

hearing. 

Confidentiality 

All submitted comments and 

attachments are part of the public record 

and subject to disclosure. Do not 

enclose any material in your comments 

that you consider to be confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

Public Disclosure 

On the Federal e-rulemaking portal, 

Regulations.gov, we will post, and you 

may view, copies of this notice, selected 

supporting materials, and any electronic 

or mailed comments we receive about 

this proposal. A direct link to the 

Regulations.gov docket containing this 

notice and the posted comments 

received on it is available on the TTB 

Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice 

No. 104. You may also reach the docket 

containing this notice and the posted 

comments received on it through the 

Regulations.gov search page at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

All posted comments will display the 

commenter’s name, organization (if 

any), city, and State, and, in the case of 

mailed comments, all address 

information, including e-mail addresses. 

We may omit voluminous attachments 

or material that we consider unsuitable 

for posting. 

You also may view copies of this 

notice, all related petitions and other 

supporting materials, and any electronic 

or mailed comments we receive about 

this proposal by appointment at the TTB 

Information Resource Center, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 

You may also obtain copies at 20 cents 

per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our 

information specialist at the above 

address or by telephone at 202–453– 

2270 to schedule an appointment or to 

request copies of comments or other 

materials. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this proposed 

regulatory amendment, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The proposed regulation 

imposes no new reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other administrative 

requirement. Any benefit derived from 

the use of a viticultural area name 

would be 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 proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 

Drafting Information 

N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and 

Rulings Division drafted this notice. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we propose to amend 27 CFR, 

chapter I, part 9, as follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

2. Section 9.183 is amended by 

revising the section heading, paragraph 

(a) and the introductory text of 

paragraphs (b) and (c), and by adding a 

new paragraph (d), to read as follows: 

§ 9.183 Yamhill-Carlton. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’. For purposes of part 

4 of this chapter, ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ is a 

term of viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate 

maps for determining the boundary of 

the Yamhill-Carlton viticultural area are 

eight 1:24,000 scale United States 

Geological Survey topography maps. 

They are titled: 

* * * * * 

(c) Boundary. The Yamhill-Carlton 

viticultural area is located in Yamhill 

and Washington Counties, Oregon, and 

is entirely within the Willamette Valley 

viticultural area. The Yamhill-Carlton 

viticultural area is limited to lands at or 

above 200 feet in elevation and at or 

below 1,000 feet in elevation within its 

boundary, which is described as 

follows— 

* * * * * 

(d) From February 7, 2005, until 

[INSERT DATE ONE DAY BEFORE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 

RULE], the name of this viticultural area 

was ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’. Effective 

[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 

FINAL RULE], this viticulture area is 

named ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’. Existing 

certificates of label approval showing 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ as an 

appellation of origin are revoked by 

operation of this regulation on [INSERT 

DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF THE FINAL RULE]. 

Signed: January 29, 2010. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4570 Filed 3–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2006–0601; FRL–9122–6] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Montana; 

Revisions to the Administrative Rules 

of Montana—Air Quality, Subchapter 7 

and Other Subchapters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan revisions 

submitted by the State of Montana on 

August 26, 1999, May 28, 2003, March 

9, 2004, October 25, 2005, and October 

16, 2006. The revisions contain new, 

amended, and repealed rules in 

Subchapter 7 (Permit, Construction, and 

Operation of Air Contaminant Sources) 

that pertain to the issuance of Montana 

air quality permits, in addition to other 

minor administrative changes to other 

subchapters of the Administrative Rules 

of Montana. The intended effect of this 

action is to propose to approve those 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS