Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 57763

notice of transferee liability to U at any time

on or before May 30 of Year 8 and assess the

unpaid liability against U at any time on or

before October 27 of Year 8. The result would

be the same even if S–1 ceased to exist before

March 1 of Year 5, the date P executed the

waiver.

(g) Cross-reference. For further rules

applicable to groups that include

insolvent financial institutions, see

§ 301.6402–7 of this chapter.

(h) Effective date—(1) Application.

This section applies with respect to

taxable years beginning on or after the

date final regulations are published in

the Federal Register.

(2) Prior law. For taxable years

beginning before the date final

regulations are published in the Federal

Register, see § 1.1502–77A.

Par. 6. Section 1.1502–77T(a) is

redesignated as § 1.1502–77A(e) and

§ 1.1502–77T is removed.

Par. 7. The amendments to § 1.1502–

78(a), as contained in the notice of

proposed rulemaking (LR–97–79)

published in the Federal Register on

July 31, 1984 (49 FR 30528), are

withdrawn.

Par. 8. Section 1.1502–78 is amended

as follows:

1. Paragraph (a) is revised.

2. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by

adding the language ‘‘for the carryback

year (or agent designated under

§ 1.1502–77(d) for the carryback year)’’

at the end of the first sentence.

3. In paragraph (c), the last sentence

of Example (1) is amended by adding

the language ‘‘for the carryback year’’

after ‘‘parent.’’

4. In paragraph (c), the last sentence

of Example (2) is amended by removing

the language ‘‘S–1’’ and adding ‘‘P’’ in

its place.

5. In paragraph (c), Example (3), the

seventh sentence is amended by

removing ‘‘Z must’’ and adding ‘‘X

must’’ in its place.

6. Paragraphs (e) and (f) are added.

The revision and additions read as

follows:

§ 1.1502–78 Tentative carryback

adjustments.

(a) General rule. If a group has a

consolidated net operating loss, a

consolidated net capital loss, or a

consolidated unused business credit for

any taxable year, then any application

under section 6411 for a tentative

carryback adjustment of the taxes for a

consolidated return year or years

preceding such year shall be made by

the common parent corporation for the

carryback year (or agent designated

under § 1.1502–77(d) for the carryback

year) to the extent such loss or unused

business credit is not apportioned to a

corporation for a separate return year

pursuant to § 1.1502–21(b), 1.1502–

22(b), or 1.1502–79(c). In the case of the

portion of a consolidated net operating

loss or consolidated net capital loss or

consolidated unused business credit to

which the preceding sentence does not

apply and which is to be carried back

to a corporation that was not a member

of a consolidated group in the carryback

year, the corporation to which such loss

or credit is attributable shall make any

application under section 6411. In the

case of a net capital loss or net operating

loss or unused business credit arising in

a separate return year which may be

carried back to a consolidated return

year, after taking into account the

application of § 1.1502–21(b)(3)(ii)(B)

with respect to any net operating loss

arising in another consolidated group,

the common parent for the carryback

year (or agent designated under

§ 1.1502–77(d) for the carryback year)

shall make any application under

section 6411.

* * * * *

(e) Cross-reference. For further rules

applicable to groups that include

insolvent financial institutions, see

§ 301.6402–7 of this chapter.

(f) Effective date—(1) In general. This

section applies to taxable years to which

a loss or credit may be carried back and

for which the due date (without

extensions) of the original return is after

the date final regulations are published

in the Federal Register.

(2) Prior law. For taxable years to

which a loss or credit may be carried

back and for which the due date

(without extensions) is on or before the

date final regulations are published in

the Federal Register, see § 1.1502–78 in

effect prior to the date final regulations

are published in the Federal Register, as

contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of

April 1, 2000.

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 00–24039 Filed 9–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 903]

RIN 1512–AA07

California Coast Viticultural Area

(2000R–166P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has

received a petition proposing the

establishment of a viticultural area

located along the coast of California.

The proposed California Coast

viticultural area would consist of 22,000

square miles, or 14 million acres of that

land which the petitioner states is

subject to maritime influences and

which is warm enough for commercial

premium winegrape growth.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by December 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O.

Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091–0221

(Attn: Notice No. 903). Copies of the

petition, the proposed regulations, the

appropriate maps, and any written

comments received will be available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at ATF Reading Room,

Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure,

Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20226

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Busey, Regulations Division, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20226 (202) 927–8095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 23, 1978, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–53 (43 FR

37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27

CFR part 4. These regulations allow the

establishment of definitive viticultural

areas. The regulations allow the name of

an approved viticultural area to be used

as an appellation of origin on wine

labels and in wine advertisements. On

October 2, 1979, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–60 (44 FR

56692) which added a new part 9 to

Title 27, CFR, for the listing of approved

American viticultural areas, the names

of which may be used as appellations of

origin.

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

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographic features,

the boundaries of which have been

delineated in subpart C of part 9.

Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the

procedure for proposing an American

viticultural area. Any interested person

may petition ATF to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area.

The petition should include:

(a) Evidence that the name of the

proposed viticultural area is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the area specified in the petition;

57764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(b) Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area

are as specified in the petition;

(c) Evidence relating to the

geographical characteristics (climate,

soil, elevation, physical features, etc.)

which distinguish the viticultural

features of the proposed area from

surrounding areas;

(d) A description of the specific

boundaries of the viticultural area,

based on features which can be found

on United States Geological Survey

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

scale; and

(e) A copy (or copies) of the

appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the

boundaries prominently marked.

Petition

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (ATF) has received a petition

from the ‘‘California Coast Alliance’’

proposing the establishment of a

viticultural area located along the coast

of California. It would include and join

together currently established ‘‘coast’’

viticultural areas but would not cover

the entire California Pacific coast. The

proposed California Coast viticultural

area would consist of 22,000 square

miles, or 14 million acres of that land

which the petitioner states is subject to

maritime influences and which is warm

enough for commercial premium

winegrape growth. This proposed

viticultural area would be consistent in

size with other large areas (i.e. the Ohio

River Valley, containing approximately

30,000 square miles, the Texas Hill

Country, consisting of 15,000 square

miles, and the Texas High Plains

containing approximately 12,000 square

miles).

Label Issue

Presently there are a number of

wineries that use the term ‘‘Coastal’’ as

additional information on their wine

labels. ATF has no formal definition or

criteria for the use of this term. These

wine labels may also bear a recognized

appellation such as ‘‘California.’’ The

question that now arises is, if this

viticultural area is approved, would

ATF consider a label bearing the

designation ‘‘California Coast’’ (as a

viticultural area designation) and

another label stating ‘‘California’’ as the

appellation in direct conjunction with

the term ‘‘Coastal’’ to be confusing.

Would the establishment of this

viticultural area foreclose the use of the

term ‘‘Coastal’’ on labels not eligible for

this viticultural area designation? The

petitioners themselves have suggested

that the unregulated use of the term

‘‘Coastal’’ on a label bearing the

appellation California is misleading to

the consumer. ATF is looking for

specific comments on this situation and

how the approval of this viticultural

area should effect the future use of the

term ‘‘Coastal.’’

Evidence That the Name of the Area Is

Locally or Nationally Known

According to the petitioners, the

name, ‘‘California Coast’’ is universally

recognized. The petitioners point out

that on a map of California, the state

has, on the western edge, one long

rugged coastline next to a relatively

narrow area of flatter land, which is

itself bordered, on the east, by a long,

nearly continuous string of mountains

known as the Coast Ranges. The other

side of the Coast Ranges is accompanied

by a long, north-south, interior strip of

continental mass distinguished by the

hot Central Valley and, east of that

basin, the high peaks of the Sierra

Nevada Range. The petitioners cite

numerous books referring to ‘‘the

California Coast’’ and the ‘‘California

Coastal’’ region.

The petitioners claim that substantial

evidence supports the common,

widespread, and historical usage of the

‘‘California Coast’’ name and

demonstrates that the term ‘‘California

Coast’’ is sometimes used to cover the

entire California coastal area from

Mexico up to Oregon, and is sometimes

used to cover much smaller portions of

the coastal area of the state, depending

on the subject matter at hand. Finally,

the petitioners point out that of all the

documentation reviewed for this

petition, none of it includes in the

description of ‘‘Coast’’ areas, any

portion of California which is east of the

California Coast, Transverse, and

Peninsular Ranges.

Proposed Limitations on the Proposed

Viticultural Area

The petitioners cite several references

that support the early production of

wines in missions which extended

along the California Coast and fall

within the boundaries of this proposed

AVA. The historical evidence indicates

the establishment of a chain of missions

by the Spanish Franciscan monks

extending from San Diego to their

northernmost mission in Sonoma

County but not all the way up the

northern part of the coast of California.

The petitioners have presented

considerable evidence tracing the roots

of this grape growing and wine

production from the early settling of

these missions along the California coast

(A History of Wine in America by

Thomas Pinney). There are many

references in historical books written by

noted wine experts that support the

early production of wines in these

missions which extended along the

California Coast and fall within the

boundaries of this AVA (see historical

discussions by wine experts in The

Wine Regions of America, by John J.

Baxevanis (Vinifera Wine Journal 1992)

at 257–8; Winemaking in California, by

Teiser and Harroun (McGraw-Hill 1983)

at 1–3; General Viticulture, by A.J.

Winkler at 2–4; The World Atlas of

Wine, by Hugh Johnson at 226; and

Wine, by Amerine and Singleton (U.C.

Press 1977) at 281–3.) In addition, the

petitioners seek to coordinate the

proposed ‘‘California Coast’’ viticultural

area with the existing boundaries of the

current North, Central, South, and

Sonoma Coast viticultural areas in

California along with the previously

unconnected coastal areas which link

the existing ‘‘Coast’’ viticultural areas.

According to the petitioners, the

northern, southern, and eastern

boundaries set by these ‘‘Coast’’

viticultural areas correspond with the

unique Mediterranean coastal climate

which permits the commercial growth

of premium winegrapes in the coastal

area of California. Moreover, according

to the petitioners, above the North Coast

viticultural area northern boundary, the

area becomes subject, to a higher degree,

to the Arctic storm pattern and can no

longer be characterized as

‘‘Mediterranean.’’ The petitioner states

that this marine-influenced climate

extends west to east from the shoreline

to the first large barrier to marine

influence, or the California Coast

Ranges. The petitioners note that

evidence must be provided to establish

that ‘‘the name is locally and/or

nationally known as referring to the area

specified in the appellation,’’ not that a

name for a viticultural area be locally or

nationally known within the wine

industry. The petitioners state that the

name ‘‘California Coast’’ not only refers

to the dominant physical characteristic

of the petitioned area and to the name

for which the area is best known, but

corresponds directly to California wine

history, climate data, and relevant

information from wine experts.

According to the petitioner, because

of the climate data and the historical

distinctions of the proposed area, it is

logical to end the ‘‘California Coast’’

viticultural area at the same point as the

North Coast viticultural area. The

petitioners do not feel that the name is

misleading for not covering the area

north of Mendocino County, since this

term has been used by many others to

cover several different portions of the

California coast, as well as the entire

coastline. The petitioners believe that if

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 57765

this could be considered misleading,

then the North Coast viticultural area

must also be renamed, because it stops

at the identical location in Mendocino

County and does not cover the entire

area of the northern coast of California.

The petitioners apply the same logic

to the consideration of the appropriate

eastern boundary of the proposed

‘‘California Coast’’ viticultural area. The

petitioners seek to establish the

proposed area at exactly the same

eastern boundaries as the North Coast,

Central Coast, and the South Coast (with

areas of joinder in between).

Historical or Current Evidence That the

Boundaries of the Viticultural Area Are

as Specified in the Petition

According to the petitioners, there is

a definite and clear historical basis for

establishing the proposed ‘‘California

Coast’’ viticultural area. The petitioners

claim that not only are there clear and

important historical events which tie

this area together, but these events are

directly linked to the development of

grape cultivation and to the beginning of

the wine industry in the coastal regions

of California, and directly correspond to

the proposed area. According to the

petitioner, the geographical area of

‘‘missionized’’ California very nearly

matches the petitioned area. The

petitioner claims that the mission chain

formed the backbone for California’s

historical heritage, and is well known

even today. The petitioners provided

references relating to historical

discussions by wine experts.

According to the petitioner, the

history of California, and of its

winemaking industry, have been deeply

affected by its long Pacific coastline and

its mild coastal weather. According to

the petitioner, the area along the coast

subject to ‘‘complete missionization’’

was the only area in which grapes were

grown for the production of wine, and

was the only area where California

wines were available for 65 years.

Today, according to the petitioners,

the area included within the proposed

‘‘California Coast’’ boundaries contains

more than 468 wineries and well over

145,000 acres of vineyards. The

petitioners state that wineries and

winegrape vineyards abound up and

down the ‘‘California Coast’’ area in

varying densities, hampered only by a

few localized and inhospitable extreme

marine microclimates, some very steep

elevations in the coastal hills, and by

the state’s population centers.

According to the petitioners, these

areas, known as coastal regions, all have

very similar weather patterns, typified

by cooling ocean breezes and fogs

moving inland from the west, until they

reach the barrier presented by the

California Coast Ranges. The petitioners

state that these same general climatic

patterns prevail to support the growth of

the many varietal grapes which are used

to produce premium dry wines.

Existing Coast Boundaries

The petitioners are proposing to retain

the same eastern boundaries for the

proposed ‘‘California Coast’’ viticultural

area as the current three ‘‘Coast’’

viticultural area boundaries and to unify

these boundaries by filling in the areas

between the North and Central Coasts,

and between the Central Coast and the

South Coast viticultural areas.

In order to complete the closure of the

area between the North and the Central

Coasts, the petitioners propose

including those counties that are

included in the San Francisco Bay

viticultural area and the recently

expanded Central Coast viticultural

area. See, 27 CFR 9.75 and 9.157. This

includes all of San Francisco, San

Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and

Contra Costa counties. The petitioners

are incorporating into the ‘‘California

Coast’’ petition the reasoning of the San

Francisco Bay and the amended Central

Coast petition in seeking to include the

same geographical area in the proposed

‘‘California Coast’’ viticultural area. See,

64 FR 3015 (Jan. 20, 1999). In addition,

the petitioners are proposing to include

the entire Marin County since it has the

same general geography and coastal

climate as the counties in the rest of the

‘‘Coast’’ viticultural areas. According to

the petitioners, Marin County is affected

by the ocean both by its long coastline,

and also by its border on the San

Francisco Bay. In support of this

proposal, the petitioners cite The Wine

Spectator’s Wine Country Guide to

California. This guide includes Marin

County in its wine map of the San

Francisco Bay area. Finally, the

petitioners claim that the information

found in the San Francisco Bay petition

and supporting documents provides

justification for placing Marin County

fully into the proposed ‘‘California

Coast’’ viticultural area. In the San

Francisco Bay and Central Coast

proposals, the Central Coast AVA is

extended north to the Golden Gate

Bridge, the northern edge of San

Francisco County. According to the

petitioners, Marin County, which has

traditionally been considered part of the

north coast area, is partially excluded

from the North Coast viticultural area

and completely excluded from the San

Francisco Bay viticultural area. The

petitioners feel that there are no

practical or logical reasons to exclude

Marin County from the proposed

‘‘California Coast’’ viticultural area

since it has historical and present-day

wine industry presence and virtually

identical climate.

The proposed eastern boundary line,

between the North Coast viticultural

area and the San Francisco Bay

viticultural area, would connect the

towns Fairfield and Martinez by

recognizable boundary markers. The rest

of the boundary gap would follow the

alignment of the Central Coast AVA and

the same line as the San Francisco Bay

viticultural area.

Between the Central and South Coast

viticultural areas, the western boundary

would follow the coastline between the

two existing viticultural areas. The

eastern boundary would take in the

Oxnard/Malibu/Los Angeles/San

Gabriel/Pasadena/Anaheim area. In

addition, the petitioners feel that it is

important to include the Los Angeles

area in the proposed ‘‘California Coast’’

AVA because of this region’s

preeminence as the birthplace of the

California wine industry, and because of

its strong performance into this century

as a producer of wines.

Evidence Relating to the Geographical

Features (Climate, Soil, Elevation,

Physical Features, Etc.) Which

Distinguish Viticultural Features of the

Proposed Area From Surrounding

Areas

According to the petitioner, the land

within the proposed ‘‘California Coast’’

viticultural area possesses a similar

climate and geography along its length,

in that this area is strongly affected by

its proximity to coastal climate patterns,

and shares the Mediterranean pattern of

wet winters, dry summers, and cool

marine influence. Climate and

geography are deeply interconnected

along the California coast. The

petitioners stated that there is a great

difference between the geography and

climate of the coast area and the inland

parts of California. Because of the

geological barriers presented by the

topography of California, the climate

patterns tend to run west to east,

depending upon their proximity to the

ocean, and are not so much a function

of north-south latitude as is true in most

of the rest of the country.

The petitioners state that the

California coast was created through

several different processes: geologic

upheaval, the draining of a large inland

sea, and marine terracing. As a result,

there is a great variety of different types

of rocks and soils along the entire

coastline. Variations are great even in

very short distances along in the coast

area, and within each of the existing

‘‘Coast’’ viticultural areas. The

57766 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

petitioners cite various references

including Professor A. J. Winkler

indicating that a number of grape

varieties of the highest quality produce

excellent wines when grown on a

number of quite different soil types with

climate being the largest determinant

variable.

As an example, the petitioners cite

Napa Valley as geographically

containing an incredible mix of soil

series varying dramatically between its

southern and northern boundaries. The

petitioners state that Napa Valley

contains 36 soil series within its

boundaries. The petitioners also cite the

Alexander Valley viticultural area,

containing 30 soil series.

As additional support, the petitioners

note the strongly distinguished soils of

the Central Valley, on the eastern side

of the California Coast Ranges. This

former inland sea, possesses highly

fertile land. The soil is now rich river

deposit, fertile and flat. According to the

petitioners, these conditions are totally

different in the Central Valley from

those among the coastal hills. The

Central Valley soils, combined with the

very hot summers in the Valley, cause

the grape vines to ‘‘go into overdrive

producing excessive foliage and bland

grapes.’’

According to the petitioners, the soils

information provides certain

consolidating evidence as to the acidic

soils of the coast and their distinction

from the kinds of soils found in the

Central Valley, while the geological data

very strongly establishes the existence

of a distinct coast of California, with a

unique history, and entirely

distinguishable land formations.

Climate of the California Coast

According to the petitioners, the coast

of California has a unique climate in the

United States and in most of the world,

and despite its size, can specifically be

distinguished from the surrounding

areas. Further, the petitioners state that

it is directly a result of the climate that

the California coast has been demarked

by enologists, vintners, and wine writers

as a source of most of the premium

varietal grapes in the United States, in

contrast with the Central Valley, which

lies on the far side of the Coast Ranges.

According to the petitioners, most

American enologists agree that climate

has the greatest influence on the quality

of wines produced in a particular area.

The California coast climate is

generally classified as Mediterranean.

According to the petitioners, only one

percent of the world has this climate,

and the area consisting of approximately

the lower two thirds of the California

coast is the only part of the United

States that has this climate. The main

reasons for this are the effects of the

ocean itself, the existence of the ‘‘Pacific

High’’ off the California coast, and the

inland barrier presented by the coastal

mountain chains. According to Weather

of Southern California by Harry P.

Bailey, ‘‘It is highly significant that all

areas of Mediterranean climate are

located between the 30th and 45th

parallels of latitude, and are on the

western borders of the land masses of

which they are a part.’’ The proposed

viticultural area would lie between the

32nd and 39th parallels of latitude.

According to the petitioners, the

Pacific Ocean water cools and heats

more slowly than land. It raises air

temperatures in the winter and lowers

them in the summer. Thus, the coast

never becomes as hot or cold as regions

several miles to the east. According to

the petitioners, summer weather results

in an often foggy coast, while it is hot

in the Central Valley. Places near the

coast experience remarkably uniform

temperatures while the inland areas

(such as San Joaquin Valley) are out of

the fogs, and temperature ranges

broaden considerably.

The petitioners state that the

California coast is not cooled by sea air

alone. The California Current, which

runs southward along the coastline,

brings cold waters from the north.

Beginning in about March, the

California current is driven offshore

resulting in the dense morning fogs

pulled inland by the rising heat of the

Central Valley. This same effect occurs

up and down the coast, although

Southern California is tempered by

warmer air from the south.

According to the petitioners, late in

the Fall, the ocean reaches its peak

temperatures, and the Pacific High

begins to weaken and to move south

with the seasonal path of the sun,

ceasing its cooling effect on the

California coast area. The extreme

Central Valley temperature drop, and

the cessation of cold bottom water

upwelling along the coast, contributes to

the coastal fog bank no longer occurring.

The cool coastal summer weather

pattern breaks, and the grape harvest

takes place during the sunny September

and October months.

According to the petitioners, the

whole proposed ‘‘California Coast’’ area

has a very similar air-conditioned

climate. Further, temperatures over the

ocean vary less than over the land, and

the prevailing westerly winds give the

California coast relatively moderate

temperatures year round. The

petitioners state that it is the location of

the land near the coast that

distinguishes the temperate climate, as

opposed to the latitudinal location of a

portion of the coast. In other words, San

Diego is closer to San Jose in climate

than it is to the hot Central Valley,

because of its location on the coast.

According to the petitioners, the

distinction between the land from

Mendocino County south, and the far

northern coast above that spot, results

from the strong polar air mass which

moves down from Alaska through

Washington, Oregon, and into the top

portion of Northern California. Because

of the presence of the much colder polar

air in the northernmost part of

California, the northern line of the

existing North Coast viticultural area

generally is the upper limit to the

Mediterranean climate. The wetter

climate similar to western Washington

extends down along the Coast Ranges

well into California, with rainfall

decreasing in a southerly direction. The

petitioners cite The Wine Regions of

California, indicating that the climatic

‘‘line’’ is drawn at the top of Mendocino

County, since the two dominating

agricultural climates (Mediterranean

and desert) are distinguished from the

humid upland climate (north of

Mendocino County). In addition, The

Wine Atlas of California notes that Lake

and Mendocino Valleys sit at the edge

of the Aleutian winter storm track. For

this same reason, the petitioners

propose limiting the California Coast

AVA to the same northern line as the

existing North Coast viticultural area.

According to the petitioners, late in

the Spring, masses of air are pushed

from behind by the Pacific High, and

pulled up from the land by the heating

of the Central Valley and other warm

inland areas. This air mass begins to

move toward the land with increasing

speed. Because of the Coriolis effect, the

air turns, and when it hits the western

edge of the land, the air moves from a

north-westerly direction, often parallel

to the slant of the coastline. This air is

prevented from moving inland by the

wall of the Coast Range, and moves

south down the coast and into any

openings or valleys along the coast.

According to the petitioners, the air is

cooled off after it hits the upwelling

cold ocean water, and so cools the

California coast as well with the fog

drying out as it moves inland and as the

air warms.

According to the petitioners, the Coast

Ranges generally contain the cool

oceanic breezes and the moist fog along

the coastline to the west of the

mountains. The petitioners state that the

influence of the California coast

diminishes rapidly as the marine air

reaches the physical barrier of the Coast

Ranges in the north, and the Transverse

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 57767

and Peninsular Ranges in the south. The

petitioners cited, The Weather of

Southern California, which graphically

demonstrates that the coastal sector, or

the western side of the mountains, is

substantially wetter, cooler, and

cloudier than the interior. The

petitioners state that these mountains

also greatly reduce the amount of

precipitation east of their crests, and

tend to cause the rain to fall on the

westerly slopes.

According to the petitioners, regions

of the coast have climates markedly

different than interior climates found at

the same latitude. As the exhibits

displaying the cutaway views of the

coast of California demonstrate, the

marine air crosses the flatter strip of

land next to the ocean, and generally is

stopped by the first significant barrier

that it reaches. In the case of the coast

of California, the first significant barrier

that is reached along the coast is the

upper elevations of the Coast Ranges. As

the above discussion of the Pacific High

displays, the cool air moves south along

the Coast Ranges, and into the valleys

and gaps along the coast.

The petitioners state that, by contrast,

the Central Valley lies away from the

climate influences of the coast. The

influence of the coast diminishes

rapidly as the marine air reaches the

physical barrier of the Coast Range. As

the marine air crosses the flatter strip of

land next to the ocean, it is generally

stopped by the first significant barrier

that it reaches, which is the upper

elevations of the coastal mountain

ranges. This explains why the coast

sector, or the western side of the

mountains, is substantially wetter,

cooler, and cloudier than the interior.

Coastal regions have climates markedly

different than interior climates found at

the same latitude.

In comparison, the Central Valley lies

on the far side of the Coast Ranges. Far

inland from marine influence, the

Central Valley is warmer than the coast

in summer and colder in winter. Thus,

the petitioners state that the climatic

contrast between the coast and interior

is marked in California.

According to the petitioners, the

proposed California Coast viticultural

area has ‘‘coastal Mediterranean’’

climatic characteristics: the cool

summer weather reaches maximum

warmth in September; the winters are

wet, mild, and relatively frost-free; and

the temperature fluctuations are

minimal. The summers are generally

dry, with a high percentage of sunny

days. According to the petitioners, the

coast has higher humidity year-round,

while places farther from the ocean will

tend to have less of a damp, marine

climate and more of a dry, continental

climate.

The petitioners state that this weather

pattern is quite special, for the world

distribution of the Mediterranean

climate is sparse.

According to the petitioners, the Coast

Range mountains catch the coastal

moisture, permitting the Pacific Ocean

to dominate the climate on the western

side of the Coast Ranges. The moist air

crosses the coastal strip and pushes up

the mountain slopes, and its moisture is

squeezed out as rain (occasionally snow

at the highest elevations). Once over the

top, the air is dry and warms rapidly as

it drops down into the Central Valley.

According to the petitioners, during the

Summer, the dry heat of the Central

Valley acts as a vacuum, sucking the

cool marine air through the San

Francisco Bay and other smaller gaps in

the coastal mountain ranges. The

petitioners state that this is one of the

reasons that the cool westerly winds

keep the California coast airconditioned.

According to the petitioners, the same

general pattern is followed in southern

California. The petitioners state that as

with the northern California coast

climate, ‘‘the climate becomes warmer,

drier, and more sunny as distance from

the coast increases. These tendencies,

though, are true only for lowlands. If the

sea-to-interior movement involves

crossing mountains, as it must with only

a few exceptions, then the effects of

altitude are also encountered.’’ And, as

with the northern California coast, the

southern California coast is known for

its Mediterranean climate. ‘‘It is a

common misconception that north

means cool and south means hot.

California’s temperatures do not depend

on latitude but on an area’s proximity to

the coast. There are parts of southern

California, around San Diego, that are

cooler than the Sacramento Valley in

northern California.’’ The petitioners

cite Grossman’s Guide to Beer, Wine,

and Spirits, for this statement. Thus,

according to the petitioners, although

Southern California is generally warmer

than Northern California, the coast of

the state which possess the

Mediterranean climate possess

substantially common characteristics

which are not shared by the rest of the

state, and which are extremely

significant for winegrape growing

purposes.

The petitioners claim that the cooling

wind flow pattern is also reflected by

precipitation and temperature.

According to the petitioners, Coastline

valleys are characterized by a gradual

decrease in humidity as the marine air

travels away from the coast.

Some of the most complete

temperature data is collected and stored

at the Western Regional Climate Center

(WRCC). This Federal government entity

is the repository for weather data

collected by the National Weather

Service (NWS), an agency within the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA). Since the time

that this cooperative observer network

has collected data, there have been over

3,000 stations that have contributed

data. Some of the data available from

the WRCC reports degree days using

various base temperatures ranging from

50 °F to 65 °F. The petitioners used a

base temperature of 50 °F, as Professor

Winkler did for his computations, to

closely approximate cumulative results

for grapes. They totaled the data

extracted from the WRCC database

adjusted for the time period of April 1st

through November 1st for stations both

inside and outside the proposed AVA.

They then applied this data to each

station, after plotting these stations

using their latitude and longitude

coordinates, and then overlaid the

information on a map of California

which is part of this petition. This map

illustrates that the California Coast area

is cooler than the inland areas when

using the five degree day ranges.

Public Participation—Written

Comments

In accordance with ATF regulations at

27 CFR 9.3, ATF requests comments

from all interested persons, as to

whether it should establish the

California Coast viticultural area in

accordance with the above described

petition submitted by the ‘‘California

Coast Alliance.’’ Because geographic

features, including climate, which

distinguish the viticultural features of

the proposed area from the surrounding

areas is an important consideration in

establishing a viticultural area, ATF is

especially interested in comments on

this topic, particularly on whether the

climate within the proposed viticultural

area is distinctive. Comments received

on or before the closing date will be

carefully considered. Comments

received after that date will be given the

same consideration if it is practical to

do so. However, assurance of

consideration can only be given to

comments received on or before the

closing date.

ATF will not recognize any submitted

material as confidential and comments

may be disclosed to the public. Any

material that the commenter considers

to be confidential or inappropriate for

disclosure to the public should not be

included in the comments. The name of

57768 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the person submitting a comment is not

exempt from disclosure.

Comments may be submitted by

facsimile transmission to (202) 927–

8602, provided the comments: (1) Are

legible; (2) are 81⁄2′′ × 11′′ in size, (3)

contain a written signature, and (4) are

three pages or less in length. This

limitation is necessary to assure

reasonable access to the equipment.

Comments sent by FAX in excess of

three pages will not be accepted.

Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be

acknowledged. Facsimile transmitted

comments will be treated as originals.

Any person who desires an

opportunity to comment orally at a

public hearing on the proposed

regulation should submit his or her

request, in writing, to the Director

within the 60-day comment period. The

Director, however, reserves the right to

determine, in light of all circumstances,

whether a public hearing will be held.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507

(j)) and its implementing regulations, 5

CFR part 1320, do not apply to this

notice because there are no new or

revised recordkeeping or reporting

requirements being proposed. No new

requirement to collect information is

proposed.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this

proposed regulation will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Any benefit derived from the use of a

viticultural area name is the result of the

proprietor’s own efforts and consumer

acceptance of wines from a particular

area. No new requirements are

proposed. Accordingly, a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this

proposed regulation is not a significant

regulatory action as defined in

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,

this proposal is not subject to the

analysis required by this Executive

order.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

is Tom Busey, Regulations Division,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Administrative practice and

procedure, Consumer protection, and

Wine.

Authority and Issuance

Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 9, American Viticultural Areas, is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL

AREAS

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C—Approved American

Viticultural Areas

Par. 2. Subpart C is amended by

adding § 9.171 to read as follows:

* * * * *

§ 9.171 California Coast.

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural

area described in this section is

‘‘California Coast.’’

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate

maps for determining the boundary of

the California Coast viticultural area are

the following sixty-two U.S.G.S.

Topographic maps. They are titled:

(1) Santa Rosa, dated 1958, (Revised

1970).

(2) San Francisco, dated 1956,

(Revised 1980).

(3) Santa Ana, dated 1959, (Revised

1979).

(4) San Luis Obispo, dated 1956,

(Revised 1969).

(5) Monterey, dated 1974.

(6) San Diego, dated 1958, (Revised

1978).

(7) San Bernardino, dated 1958,

(Revised 1969).

(8) Los Angeles, dated 1975.

(9) Santa Maria, dated 1989.

(10) Long Beach, dated 1957, (Revised

1978).

(11) Aetna Springs, dated 1958,

(Revised 1992).

(12) Albion, dated 1960.

(13) Altamont, dated 1953, (Revised

1981).

(14) Arched Rock, dated 1977.

(15) Bartlett Mtn., dated 1958,

(Revised 1994).

(16) Bodega Head, dated 1972.

(17) Brushy Mtn., dated 1966,

(Revised 1994).

(18) Burbeck, dated 1991.

(19) Byron Hot Springs, dated 1953,

(Revised 1968).

(20) Calaveras Reservoir, dated 1961,

(Revised 1980).

(21) Chiles Valley, dated 1966,

(Revised 1994).

(22) Clayton, dated 1953, (Revised

1980).

(23) Clearlake Oaks, dated 1958,

(Revised 1994).

(24) Diablo, dated 1953, (Revised

1980).

(25) Duncans Mills, dated 1979.

(26) Elk Mountain, dated 1967,

(Revised 1973).

(27) Fairfield North, dated 1951,

(Revised 1980).

(28) Fairfield South, dated 1949,

(Revised 1980).

(29) Fort Bragg, dated 1960, (Revised

1978).

(30) Fort Ross, dated 1978.

(31) Gilroy, dated 1955, (Revised

1993).

(32) Gilroy Hot Springs, dated 1955,

(Revised 1971).

(33) Gualala, dated 1960, (Revised

1977).

(34) Honker Bay, dated 1953, (Revised

1980).

(35) Jericho Valley, dated 1958,

(Revised 1993).

(36) La Costa Valley, dated 1996.

(37) Lake Berryessa, dated 1959,

(Revised 1993).

(38) Lick Observatory, dated 1955,

(Revised 1968).

(39) Lower Lake, dated 1993.

(40) Mallo Pass Creek, dated 1960,

(Revised 1977).

(41) Mendenhall Springs, dated 1996.

(42) Mendocino, dated 1960, (Revised

1978).

(43) Monticello Dam, dated 1959,

(Revised 1993).

(44) Morgan Hill, dated 1955,

(Revised 1980).

(45) Mt. Sizer, dated 1955, (Revised

1971).

(46) Mt. Vaca, dated 1951, (Revised

1968).

(47) Northspur, dated 1991.

(48) Plantation, dated 1977.

(49) Point Arena, dated 1960, (Revised

1978).

(50) Potter Valley, dated 1960.

(51) Sanhedrin Mtn., dated 1966,

(Revised 1994).

(52) San Jose East, dated 1961,

(Revised 1980).

(53) Saunders Reef, dated 1960,

(Revised 1977).

(54) Stewarts Point, dated 1978.

(55) Tassajara, dated 1991.

(56) Three Sisters, dated 1954,

(Revised 1971).

(57) Upper Lake, dated 1991.

(58) Van Arsdale Reservoir, dated

1991.

(59) Vine Hill, dated 1959, (Revised

1980).

(60) Walter Springs, dated 1959,

(Revised 1992).

(61) Wildomar, dated 1953, (Revised

1988).

(62) Willis Ridge, dated 1966,

(Revised 1994).

(c) Boundary. The California Coast

viticultural area is located along the

Pacific Ocean coast of the State of

California.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules 57769

(1) The beginning point is found on

the ‘‘Bodega Head’’ Quadrangle at the

point where the Sonoma County and

Marin County boundary joins the Pacific

Ocean;

(2) Then Northwest following the

Pacific Ocean Shoreline, crossing the

Duncans Mills, Arched Rock, Fort Ross,

Plantation, Stewarts Point, Gualala,

Sanders Reef, Point Arena, Mallo Pass

Creek, Albion, Mendocino Quadrangles

to the mouth of the Noyo River on the

Fort Bragg Quadrangle;

(3) Then east following the Noyo

River, crossing the Northspur

Quadrangle to the confluence with

Redwood Creek on the Burbeck

Quadrangle;

(4) Then northeast on a straight line

for approximately 17.6 miles; crossing

the Willis Ridge Quadrangle, to the peak

of Brushy Mountain (elevation 4,864

feet) on the Brushy Mountain

Quadrangle;

(5) Then southeast in a straight line

for approximately 9.4 miles to the peak

of Sanhedrin Mountain (elevation 6,175

feet) on the Sanhedrin Mountain

Quadrangle;

(6) Then southeast in a straight line

for approximately 12.1 miles to the peak

of Pine Mountain (elevation 3,746 feet)

on the Van Arsdale Reservoir

Quadrangle;

(7) Then southeast in a straight line

for approximately 11.2 miles, crossing

the Potter Valley and Elk Mountain

Quadrangles to Youngs Peak (elevation

3,683 feet) on the Upper Lake

Quadrangle;

(8) Then southeast on a straight line

for approximately 8.0 miles to Pinnacle

Rock Lookout (elevation 4,618 feet) on

the Bartlett Mountain Quadrangle;

(9) Then southeast in a straight line

for approximately 5.0 miles, crossing

the Bartlett Springs Quadrangle, to

Evans Peak (elevation 4,005 feet) on the

Clearlake Oaks Quadrangle;

(10) Then southeast in a straight line

for approximately 5.5 miles to the peak

of Round Mountain on the Clearlake

Oaks Quadrangle;

(11) Then southeast in a straight line

for approximately 6.6 miles to Bally

Peak (elevation 2,288 feet) on the Lower

Lake Quadrangle;

(12) Then southeast in a straight line

for approximately 5.0 miles to the peak

of Brushy Sky High Mountain (elevation

3,196 feet) on the Lower Lake

Quadrangle;

(13) Then southeast for approximately

11.4 miles following Putah Creek to the

boundary between Napa and Lake

Countries on the Jericho Valley

Quadrangle;

(14) Then southeast, crossing the

Aetna Springs Quadrangle, following

Putah Creek to the west shore of Lake

Berryessa on the Walter Springs

Quadrangle;

(15) Then south and east following

the shore of Lake Berryessa, crossing the

Chiles Valley and Berryessa

Quadrangles to the Monticello Dam at

the eastern end of Lake Berryessa on the

Monticello Dam Quadrangle;

(16) Then south following the

boundary between Napa and Solano

Counties to the extreme southeastern

corner of Napa County on the Fairfield

North Quadrangle;

(17) Then south in a straight line

approximately 5.5 miles to the junction

with the Southern Pacific in Suisun City

on the Fairfield South Quadrangle;

(18) Then south and west crossing the

Cine Hill Quadrangle, following the

Southern Pacific Railroad double track

to its intersection with Suisun Bay on

the Benicia Quadrangle;

(19) Then southeast following

Highway 21 across the Suisun Bay to its

intersection with the south shore of

Suisun Bay on the Vine Hill

Quadrangle;

(20) Then east along the shoreline to

a point marked BM 15 on the shoreline

of Contra Costa County on the Vine Hill

Quadrangle;

(21) Then, from this point, the

boundary proceeds in a southeasterly

direction on a straight line across the

Honker Bay map to Mulligan Hill

(elevation 1,438 feet) on the Clayton

Quadrangle;

(22) Then the boundary proceeds in a

southeasterly direction in a straight line

to Mt. Diablo (elevation 3,849 feet) on

the Clayton Quadrangle;

(23) Then the boundary proceeds in a

southeasterly direction in a straight line

across Diablo and Tassajara maps to

Brushy Peak (elevation 1,702 feet) on

the Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle;

(24) The boundary proceeds due

south, approximately 400 feet, to the

northern boundary of Section 13,

Township 2 South, Range 2 East on the

Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle;

(25) The boundary proceeds due east

along the northern boundaries of

Section 13 and Section 18, Township 2

South, Range 3 East, to the northeast

corner of Section 18 on the Byron Hot

Springs Quadrangle;

(26) The boundary proceeds due west

along the northern boundaries of

Sections 18, 19, 30, and 31 in Township

2 South, Range 3 East, to the northeast

corner of Section 18 and the Byron Hot

Springs Quadrangle;

(27) Then proceed east along the

southern border of Section 32,

Township 2 South, Range 3 East to the

northwest corner of Section 4 on the

Altamont Quadrangle;

(28) Then proceed south along the

western border of Sections 4 and 9 on

the Altamont Quadrangle;

(29) Then proceed south along the

western border of Section 16

approximately 4,275 feet to the point

where the 1,100-meter elevation contour

intersects the western border of Section

16 on the Altamont Quadrangle;

(30) Then proceed in a southeasterly

direction along the 1,100-meter

elevation contour to the intersection of

the southern border of Section 21 with

the 1,100-meter elevation contour on the

Altamont Quadrangle;

(31) Then proceed west to the

southwest corner of Section 20 on the

Altamont Quadrangle;

(32) Then proceed south along the

western boundaries of Sections 29 and

32, Township 3 South, Range 3 East and

then south along the western boundaries

of Sections 5, 8, 17, 20, Township 4

South, Range 3 East to the southwest

corner of Section 20 on the Mendenhall

Springs Quadrangle;

(33) The boundary follows the eastwest section line west along the

southern boundary of Section 19 in

Township 4 South, Range 3 East, and

west along the southern boundary of

Section 24 in Township 4 South, Range

2 East, to the southwest corner of that

Section 24 on the Mendenhall Springs

Quadrangle;

(34) The boundary follows the northsouth section line north along the

western boundary of Section 24 in

Township 4 South, Range 2 East, to the

northwest corner of that Section 24 on

the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle;

(35) The boundary follows the eastwest section line west along the

southern boundary of Section 14 in

Township 4 South, Range 2 East, to the

southwest corner of that Section 14 on

the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle;

(36) The boundary follows the northsouth section line north along the

western boundary of Section 14 in

Township 4 South, Range 2 East, to the

Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct on the

Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle;

(37) The boundary follows the Hetch

Hetchy Aqueduct southwesterly to the

range line dividing Range 1 East from

Range 2 East on the La Costa Valley

Quadrangle;

(38) The boundary follows this range

line south to its intersection with State

Route 130 on the Calaveras Reservoir

Quadrangle;

(39) The boundary follows State Route

130 southeasterly to its intersection

with the township line dividing

Township 6 South from Township 7

South on the San Jose East Quadrangle;

(40) From this point, the boundary

proceeds in a straight line southeasterly

57770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 26, 2000 / Proposed Rules

to the intersection of the township line

dividing Township 7 South from

Township 8 South with the range line

dividing Range 2 East from Range 3 East

on the Lick Observatory Quadrangle;

(41) From this point, the boundary

proceeds in a straight line southeasterly

crossing the Morgan Hill Quadrangle to

the intersection of the township line

dividing Township 8 South from

Township 9 South with the range line

dividing Range 3 East from Range 4 East

on the Mt. Sizer Quadrangle;

(42) From this point, the boundary

proceeds in a straight line southeasterly

to the intersection of Coyote Creek with

the township line dividing Township 9

South from Township 10 South on the

Gilroy Quadrangle;

(43) From this point, the boundary

proceeds in a straight line southeasterly

to the intersection of the 37 degree 00′

North latitude parallel with State Route

152 on the Gilroy Quadrangle;

(44) The boundary follows the 37

degree 00′ North latitude parallel east to

the range line dividing Range 5 East

from Range 6 East on the Three Sisters

Quadrangle;

(45) The boundary follows this range

line south to the San Benito-Santa Clara

County line on the Three Sisters

Quadrangle;

(46) The boundary follows the San

Benito-Santa Clara County line easterly,

from the intersection with the Range 6

East line to the San Benito-Merced

County line on the Monterey 1:250,000

map;

(47) The boundary follows the San

Benito-Merced County line

southeasterly to the conjunction of the

county lines of San Benito, Merced, and

Fresno counties on the Monterey

1:250,000 map;

(48) From this point, the boundary

proceeds in a southwesterly extension

of the Merced-Fresno County line to Salt

Creek on the Monterey 1:250,000 map;

(49) From this point, the boundary

proceeds in a straight line southeasterly

to the conjunction of the county lines of

Monterey, San Benito, and Fresno

Counties on the Monterey 1:250,000

map;

(50) The boundary follows the

Monterey-Fresno County line

southeasterly to the Monterey-Kings

County line on the San Luis Obispo

1:250,000 map;

(51) The boundary follows the

Monterey-Kings County line

southeasterly to the San Luis ObispoKings County line on the San Luis

Obispo 1:250,000 map;

(52) The boundary follows the San

Luis Obispo-Kings County line east to

the San Luis Obispo-Kern County line of

the San Luis Obispo 1:250,000 map;

(53) The boundary follows the San

Luis Obispo-Kern County line south,

then east, then south to the point which

the county line diverges easterly from

the range line dividing Range 17 East

from Range 18 East on the San Luis

Obispo 1:250,000 map;

(54) The boundary follows this range

line south to the township line dividing

Township 28 South from Township 29

South on the San Luis Obispo 1:250,000

map;

(55) The boundary follows the

township line west to the range line

dividing Range 13 East from Range 14

East on the San Luis Obispo 1:250,000

map;

(56) The boundary follows this range

line south to the boundary of the Los

Padres National Forest on the San Luis

Obispo 1:250,000 map;

(57) Then southeast following the

boundary of the Los Padres National

Forest across the San Luis Obispo and

Santa Maria 1:250,000 maps, to the

Range Line dividing Range 21 and

Range 20 West on the Los Angeles

1:250,000 map;

(58) Then southeast in a straight line

to an unnamed peak (elevation 1,925

feet) on the Los Angeles 1:250,000 map;

(59) Then southeast in a straight line

to an unnamed peak (elevation 2,992

feet) on the Los Angeles 1:250,000 map;

(60) Then southeast in a straight line

to an unnamed peak (elevation 4,003

feet) on the Los Angeles 1:250,000 map;

(61) Then southeast in a straight line

to an unnamed peak (elevation 3,839

feet) on the Los Angeles 1:250,000 map;

(62) Then southeast on a straight line

to Strawberry peak (elevation 6,164 feet)

on the Los Angeles 1:250,000 map;

(63) Then southeast in a straight line

to Johnstone Peak (elevation 3126 feet)

on the San Bernardino 1:250,000 map;

(64) Then south to the intersection of

the Orange County-San Bernardino

County line on the Santa Ana 1:250,000

map;

(65) Then eastward, and

southeastward along the Orange County

line, to the intersection of that county

line with the township line on the

northern border of Township 7 South

(in Range 6 West; on the Santa Ana

1:250,000 map);

(66) Then from there eastward along

that township line to its intersection

with the northern boundary of the

Temecula viticultural area described in

section 9.50; of this part, the Temecula

viticultural area boundary coincides

with the boundary of the Cleveland

National Forest on the Wildomar

Quadrangle map;

(67) Then following the northern

boundary of the Temecula viticultural

area, at and near its northernmost point,

generally northeastward, eastward, and

southeastward until the Temecula

viticultural area boundary again

intersects the township line on the

northern border of Township 7 South

(in Range 4 West; thus all of the

Temecula viticultural area is included

inside of South Coast viticultural area as

described in section 9.104 of this part);

(68) Then eastward, along the

township line of the northern border of

Township 7 South, to the San

Bernardino Meridian on the Santa Ana

1:250,000 map;

(69) Then southward along the San

Bernardino Meridian to the Riverside

County-San Diego County line on the

Santa Ana 1:250,000 map;

(70) Then westward along the county

line for 71⁄2 miles, to the western

boundary of the Cleveland National

Forest (near the Pechanga Indian

Reservation on the Santa Ana 1:250,000

map);

(71) Then generally southeastward

along the Cleveland National Forest

boundary to where it joins California

Highway 76 on the Santa Ana 1:250,000

map;

(72) From there generally

southeastward along Highway 76 to

California Highway 79 on the Santa Ana

1:250,000 map;

(73) Then southeastward along

Highway 79 to the township line on the

northern border of Township 12 South

(in Range 3 East) on the Santa Ana

1:250,000 map;

(74) Then eastward along that

township line to its intersection with

the range line on the eastern border of

Range 3 East on the Santa Ana 1:250,000

map;

(75) Then from there southward along

that range line to U.S.-Mexico

international border on the Santa Ana

1:250,000 map and the San Diego

1:250,000 map;

(76) Then westward along that

international border to the Pacific Ocean

on the San Diego 1:250,000 map;

(77) Then generally northwestward

along the shore of the Pacific Ocean to

the starting point crossing the San Diego

1:250,000 map, the Santa Ana 1:250,000

map, the Long Beach 1:250,000 map, the

Los Angeles 1:250,000 map, the Santa

Maria 1:250,000 map, the Santa Luis

Obispo 1:250,000 map, the Monterey

1:250,000 map, the San Francisco

1:250,000 map, on the Santa Rosa

1:250,000 map.

Dated: September 19, 2000.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–24667 Filed 9–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P