5828 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

member of the taxpayer’s affiliated

group holds the ownership interest. The

directly allocated interest expense shall

be apportioned among all of the FASIT

gross income of the affiliated group (or

the taxpayer, if the taxpayer is not a

member of an affiliated group) under the

asset method described in § 1.861–9T(g).

(3) FASIT period. After a FASIT’s

startup day (as defined in section

860L(d)(1)), the taxpayer must allocate

the interest expense of the FASIT

according to the rules of this paragraph

(f) during the entire period that the

arrangement continues to be a FASIT. If

an arrangement ceases to be a FASIT,

interest expense with respect to the

ceased FASIT arrangement shall no

longer be allocated and apportioned

under the rules of this paragraph (f) as

of the time the arrangement is treated as

having ceased in accordance with

§ 1.860H–3(b). The Commissioner may

continue to allocate interest expense

with respect to a ceased FASIT

arrangement under this paragraph (f) if

the Commissioner determines that the

principal purpose of ending the

arrangement’s qualification as a FASIT

was to affect the taxpayer’s interest

expense allocation.

(4) Application of special rules. In

applying this paragraph (f), the rules of

paragraph (d)(2)of this section shall

apply.

(5) Definitions. For purposes of this

paragraph (f):

(i) FASIT defined. FASIT has the

meaning given such term in § 1.860H–

1(a).

(ii) FASIT interest expense defined.

(A) In general. FASIT interest expense

means any amount paid or accrued by

or on behalf of a FASIT to a holder of

a regular interest in such FASIT, if such

amount is—

(1) treated as incurred by the taxpayer

or any member of the taxpayer’s

affiliated group by reason of § 1.860H–

6(a), because the taxpayer or such

member holds the ownership interest in

a FASIT; and

(2) treated as interest by reason of

section 860H(c).

(B) Interest equivalents. FASIT

interest expense includes any expense

or loss from a hedge that is a permitted

asset (as described in § 1.860H–2 (d) and

(e)), but only to the extent such expense

or loss is an interest equivalent as

described in § 1.861–9T(b).

(iii) FASIT gross income defined.

FASIT gross income means gross

income of the taxpayer’s affiliated group

(or the taxpayer, if the taxpayer is not

a member of an affiliated group) treated

as received or accrued by the taxpayer,

or any member of the taxpayer’s

affiliated group, by reason of § 1.860H–

6(a).

(iv) Affiliated group defined.

Affiliated group has the meaning given

such term by § 1.861–11T(d).

(6) Coordination with other

provisions. If any FASIT interest

expense is directly allocable under both

this paragraph (f) and paragraph (b) or

(c) (determined without regard to this

paragraph (f)(6)), only the rules of this

paragraph (f) shall apply.

(7) Effective date. The rules of this

section apply for taxable years

beginning after December 31, 1986.

However, paragraphs (a) and (f) apply as

of the date final regulations are filed

with the Federal Register, and

paragraph (e) applies to all taxable years

beginning after December 31, 1991.

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 00–1896 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 891]

RIN 1512–AA07

Expansion of Lodi Viticultural Area

(98R–109P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has

received a petition for expansion of the

Lodi Viticultural Area. The proposed

additions to the Lodi Viticultural Area

are located in San Joaquin County,

California, in the northern San Joaquin

Valley. The additions are situated

contiguous to the western and southern

boundaries of the current viticultural

area. The proposed western addition

encompasses approximately 14,500

acres, of which 3,640 acres are planted

to vineyards. Situated contiguous to the

southern boundary of the viticultural

area, the proposed southern addition

encompasses approximately 66,600

acres, of which 5,600 acres are planted

to vineyards. Attorney Christopher Lee,

on behalf of nine (9) growers who own

vineyards within the proposed

expansion area, submitted the petition.

According to the petitioner, the

importance of Lodi as a viticultural area

demands that particular care be taken in

extending the viticultural area

boundaries, in order to safeguard the

region’s identity, integrity, and

reputation. The petitioner states that

this petition adds only that land which

meets all the historical and geographical

criteria that distinguish the Lodi

viticultural area.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by April 7, 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. 891). 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 the ATF Reading

Room, Office of Public Liaison and

Information, Room 6480, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20226.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joyce Drake, Regulations Division,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20226 (202) 927–

8210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 23, 1978, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–53 (43 FR

37672–54624), which revised

regulations in 27 CFR part 4 to 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 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 are 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 to expand a current

viticultural area should include:

(a) Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area to

be expanded are as specified in the

petition;

(b) Evidence relating to the

geographical characteristics (climate,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5829

soil, elevation, physical features, etc.)

which distinguished the viticultural

features of the proposed area from

surrounding areas;

(c) 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

(d) A copy 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

proposing the expansion of the Lodi

American viticultural area (AVA). The

proposed additions to the Lodi AVA are

located in San Joaquin County,

California, in the northern San Joaquin

Valley. Situated contiguous to the

western boundary of the current

viticultural area, the proposed western

addition encompasses approximately

14,500 acres, of which 3,640 acres are

planted to vineyards. Situated

contiguous to the southern boundary of

the viticultural area, the proposed

southern addition encompasses

approximately 66,600 acres, of which

5,600 acres are planted to vineyards.

Evidence That the Name of the Area Is

Locally or Nationally Known

According to the petitioner, there is

evidence of the region’s local and

national renown which was detailed in

the Lodi viticultural area petition

submitted to the ATF in August of 1982,

and summarized in the final rulemaking

for the Lodi viticultural area, published

in the Federal Register on February 13,

1986.

The petitioner states that he is

persuaded after reviewing the evidence

and consulting with growers in the Lodi

viticultural area, that the current

viticultural boundaries do not

accurately encompass land historically

and geographically recognized as within

the Lodi grape growing region. The

petitioner further states that, while not

included in the original petition to

establish the Lodi viticultural area, it is

now apparent that the two additions

proposed in this petition, the first along

the western boundary adjacent to

Interstate Highway 5, the second along

the southeastern boundary south of the

Calaveras River, should be included in

the Lodi viticultural area because they

share the viticultural area’s name

identification and geographical features.

Further, the petitioner claims that the

viticultural area and the proposed

additions contrast sharply with land

beyond the revised boundaries

presented in this petition, which are

geographically distinct from Lodi.

According to the petitioner, both The

Grape Districts of California H.I. Stoll

(1931) and California Wine Country

(Lane Books 1968) define the Lodi grape

growing region as a larger area than that

presented in the original viticultural

area petition. The former document

additionally shows that the Lodi name

was used in this context as early as

1931.

ATF approved the Lodi original

petition in 1986, and determined that

the name ‘‘Lodi’’ was recognized locally

and nationally.

Historical or Current Evidence That the

Boundaries of the Viticultural Area Are

as Specified in the Petition

According to the petitioner, Lodi has

a long viticultural history and strong

regional identity. Precise boundaries for

the region were not delineated until

1986 with the establishment of the Lodi

viticultural area. The petitioner states

that, in 1991, the Lodi name became

associated with a second, far larger area

with the creation of the LodiWoodbridge Wine Commission,

established in California Crush District

11 by grower and winery mandate for

the purposes of regional promotion,

research and education. Per the

petitioner, this petition does not attempt

to reconcile these two entities. Rather,

this petition proposes the previously

described additions to the Lodi

viticultural area which, based on name

identity and natural features, should

have been encompassed by the original

petition. He stated that special care has

been taken to assure that the modified

boundaries maintain both the historic

and geographic integrity of the existing

Lodi viticultural area.

According to the petitioner and, as

noted in the section addressing

historical evidence, the Lodi grapegrowing region is described in broader

terms than those presented and

approved in the original Lodi

viticultural area petition. The Soil

Survey of the Lodi Area, California

(1937) states as follows: ‘‘Essentially

comprising the northern half of the San

Joaquin County, the Lodi area is

bounded on the south by parallel 38

north latitude and on the north by the

San Joaquin-Sacramento County line

along Dry Creek and Mokelumn River.

The western area includes a small part

of Sacramento County and extends to

the Sacramento River; and on the east it

extends to the San Joaquin County line

in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada.’’

The petitioner stated that, while

similar to The Soil Survey of the Lodi

Area, California in its overall depiction

of Lodi’s boundaries, California Wine

Country defines the western boundary

of the Lodi grape growing region in a

slightly more restrictive manner stating

‘‘Lodi nestles within the angle formed

by the meeting of the Sacramento and

San Joaquin Rivers,’’ but not extending

to those rivers’ banks.

The petitioner stated that The Grape

Districts of California clearly shows that

the Lodi grape growing region extends

south beyond both the current southern

boundary of the Lodi viticultural area

and the latitude 38 degrees north limit

detailed above, stating that, ‘‘The Lodi

section takes in the south line of

Stockton . . . while the Manteca,

Escalon and Ripon sections take in from

the south line of Stockton to the north

to Stanislaus County line on the south.’’

According to the petitioner, ‘‘Wines &

Vines’’ magazine of September, 1936,

confirms this extension, stating, ‘‘San

Joaquin County’s 60,065 acres in vines

comprise two important districts, where

some 47 varieties are grown

commercially: the Lodi Section and the

Manteca, Escalon and Ripon Section.’’

The petitioner contends that, since

Manteca, Escalon and Ripon are located

15 miles to 20 miles south of Stockton,

near San Joaquin County’s southern

boundary, this description strongly

suggests that vineyards situated to the

east of Stockton were recognized as

being within the Lodi grape growing

region.

The petitioner believes that this

evidence provides strong historical basis

for modification of the Lodi viticultural

area boundaries to those proposed in

this petition.

According to the petitioner, the

proposed additions encompassed by

these boundary changes contain

approximately 29 vineyards totaling

9,240 acres planted to vineyards.

Approximately 80,000 acres in total are

proposed for addition to the existing

Lodi area. He further states that

evidence presented in Section Three of

this petition details the geographic

features which distinguish them from

surrounding areas. Although a few

vineyards are situated just outside both

revised boundaries, these exclusions are

due to the conservative approach of this

petition. This conservative approach

requires that the land encompassed by

the new boundaries meet both the

historical and geographic standards

established in the original Lodi

viticultural area.

The petitioner states that the

proposed expansion of the Lodi

viticultural area is supported by growers

in the region. The petitioner stated that

the letter from Mr. Bob Schulenburg of

the Lodi District Grape Growers

5830 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Association, Inc. reflects the general

support this expansion has received

from the Lodi viticultural community.

The petitioner states that the new

boundaries of the Lodi viticultural area

have been drawn to add only that land

that meets the regulatory criteria set

forth in 27 CFR 4.25a (e)(2). The

proposed western boundary closely

follows the zero (sea level) elevation

west of Interstate Highway 5, while the

proposed southern boundary follows

State Highway 4 between Jack Tone

Road and the San Joaquin County line.

The petitioner stated that the areas

proposed for inclusion in the

viticultural area are supported by

evidence of name and boundary

recognition as well as by specific

criteria including soils, climate,

elevation and exposure, which

distinguish them from areas to the west

and south.

Evidence Relating to the Geographical

Features (Climate, Soil, Elevation,

Physical Features, Etc.) Which

Distinguish Viticultural Features of the

Proposed Area From Surrounding

Areas

Climate

According to Mr. Steven Newman,

Meteorologist, Earth Environment, Santa

Rosa, California, the proposed additions

to the existing Lodi viticultural area

have a climate nearly identical to the

existing appellation. Both additions

receive the same moderating influences

of the Sacramento Delta winds that

define the current boundaries, while

areas just outside have climates

distinctly different from both the

additions and land within the existing

boundaries. Every significant climate

feature, such as rainfall, degree-days,

frost occurrence and mean

temperatures, are virtually the same

within the proposed additions as those

that occur inside the existing Lodi

viticultural area.

Mr. Newman stated that the area west

of Interstate Highway 5 experiences

essentially the same climate as that

within the existing Lodi viticultural

area. The pronounced seabreezes from

the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento

Delta provide nearly identical

conditions to those found within the

original western boundary. There is no

discernible difference in average

growing season, monthly mean

temperature, or rainfall throughout this

addition from that which exists in the

current Lodi viticultural area.

According to Mr. Newman, areas

immediately to the south and southwest

of the proposed addition, however, have

a distinctly different climate due to the

sharp drop-off of the Delta winds and

other terrain effects. Lower humidity

levels associated with a greater distance

from the moist winds produce cooler

overnight temperatures and warmer

‘‘rain-show’’ effect of the Diablo

mountain range. The climate of the

proposed western addition is also

distinctively different from the more

moist Delta region, to the west of the

proposed boundary, which experiences

cooler summers, and far more frequent

summertime fog.

Mr. Newman claims that records

indicate that the monthly mean

temperature during the growing season

for Linden, in the heart of the proposed

southern addition, is within

approximately two degrees of the

readings from Lodi, and well within the

range of temperatures throughout the

existing viticultural area. He further

states that, by contrast, records for

Stockton, located in a site less

influenced by marine cooling through

the narrow Delta gap, show an average

nearly five degrees warmer.

According to Mr. Newman, areas just

a few miles to the east of the proposed

addition, in western Calaveras County,

receive significant cold-air drainage

from the Sierra Nevada foothills,

causing more frequent frost and a

shorter growing season. The more

upland locations also receive an

increase in rainfall associated with the

higher elevations.

Mr. Newman stated that rainfall

records for this proposed addition show

an annual precipitation range of

approximately 14 to 18 inches. These

totals are consistent with those received

within the existing boundaries. He

stated that, in sharp contrast, rainfall

totals to the south drop off rapidly due

to a more arid climate associated with

the remainder of the San Joaquin Valley.

In summary, according to Mr.

Newman, the climatic evidence clearly

supports a modification of both the

southern and western boundaries of the

Lodi viticulture area to include the

proposed additions. All climate factors

within these additions are nearly

identical to those within the existing

appellation. Climate evidence also

substantiates that conditions outside the

areas to be included are significantly

different from the existing Lodi

viticultural area and the proposed

additions.

Soils

The petition indicates that the soils of

the proposed expansion area are

substantially similar to those of the

existing viticultural area. Mr. Sidney W.

Davis of Davis Consulting Earth

Scientists, Georgetown, California,

states that soils of the Lodi viticultural

area derive mainly from mixed mineral

alluvium, products of weathering,

erosion and deposition along the

western slope of the Sierra Nevada.

Source materials are varied, consisting

of Mesozoic igneous, Paleozoic and

Jurassic metamorphics, and Teritary-age

volcanic lithology outcropping along the

foothills. Older alluvium nests along toe

slopes of the foothills on the Great

Valley’s east side, descending in

elevation and age, westward, to below

sea level at the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta interface.

Mr. Davis claims that paleoclimatic

fluctuations over the past two million

years caused glaciers to advance in the

Sierra Nevada, periodically lowering

regional base level (sea level) by several

hundred feet, which prompted incision

on the major drainages. Interruptions of

warm, dry periods resulted in glacial

melt, thus releasing water and sediment

for valley filling. These cyclical events,

each lasting many thousands of years,

continued throughout the Pleistocene

Epoch, and in conjunction with regional

tectonic uplift, had an effect of wearing

down and fragmenting older terraces by

deep incision along major drainages of

the Consumnes River, Dry Creek,

Mokelumne River, and the Calaveras

Rivers. Downcutting on the major rivers

and streams, punctuated by periods of

aggradation, in conjunction with

regional uplift of the Sierra Nevada,

caused younger deposits to inset along

flood plains at relatively lower

geomorphic position, leaving relatively

older alluvial surfaces stranded at

higher elevation. Transition periods of

relative stability between major events

allowed the soil forming factors of

climate biota, slop-aspect parent

materials and time of exposure to

develop and sculpt the landforms now

present. Very young soils with little

development characteristics, Holoeneage deposits, and histosols (organic

soils) are present along the active flood

plains of streams and perimeter of the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

According to Mr. Davis, subsequent to

the latest Sierra glaciation and rise of

sea level, the present-day SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta with its associated

peaty soils formed sometime around

5,000 years ago, when sea level finally

reached its present elevation (Mean Sea

Level—00 Feet). He further stated that,

around the turn of the 20th Century, the

banks of coalescing rivers, channels and

sloughs within the Delta region were

bermed to create a system of man-made

levees. ‘‘Islands’’ of peat soils within the

levees were created at or below Mean

Sea Level by installation of a broad grid

system of open ditches, pipes and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5831

pumps for lowering of the water table to

facilitate agricultural production.

Exposure of the peat soils to the

atmosphere subsequent to draining has

induced rapid oxidation and subsidence

within the Delta region, ever since.

Mr. Davis provided an abbreviated

description of soils within the Lodi

viticultural area, utilizing information

from the USDA Soil Conservation

Service’s Generalized Soil Map for

Sacramento and San Joaquin counties.

He stated that soil associations are

presented as most representative of soil

mapping units characteristic of broader

geomorphic units. According to the

petition, these soils share properties

distinctive to the Lodi viticultural area

with regard to viticultural use and

management under the present-day

climatic regime.

Mineral Soils of the Current Lodi

Viticultural Area

Mr. Davis stated that, between the two

published soil surveys for Sacramento

and San Joaquin Counties, there are

twenty-two soil map unit associations

identified in the existing Lodi

Viticultural Area. All twenty-two soil

mapping units are identified in the

proposed expansion area. He stated that

no other soil association mapping units

are proposed for the expansion areas.

There may be small isolated areas of

organic soils along the Mean Sea Level

margin that protrude into the proposed

expansion area, but these occurrences

are minimal and necessary to exact a

reasonable map boundary line.

According to Mr. Davis, to avoid

redundancy between the two soil survey

reports for Sacramento and San Joaquin

Counties, the major soil associations

have been combined in the following

groups and are used for the current,

proposed western and southern

expansion viticultural areas:

Natural Levees and Low Flood Plains

Soils

Peliter-Egbert-Sailboat: Very deep

mineral soils with high organic matter

content. They are partially drained,

moderately fine textured and

moderately alkaline. These reside near

the confluence of the Consumnes and

Mokelumne rivers.

Merritt-Grangeville-Columbia-VinaCoyotecreek: Nearly level, very deep

and from poorly drained to moderately

well drained. Textures range from

moderately coarse to moderately fine.

These soils are easy to manage with

moderate permeability and moderately

high to high waterholding capacity,

moderately alkaline.

Basins and Basin Rim Soils

Jacktone-Hollenbeck-Stockton: Basin

soils, somewhat poorly drained and

moderately well drained, fine textured

soils that are moderately deep and deep

to a cemented hardpan. Most areas have

been artificially drained and are

moderately alkaline.

Devries-Rioblancho-Guard: Basin rim

soils of moderately fine texture to

moderately coarse texture. Moderately

deep to cemented hardpan. Mildly to

moderately alkaline.

Interfan Basins and Alluvial Fans, Low

Fan Terraces and Stream Soils

Archerdale-Cogna-Finrod: Moderately

well drained and well drained, medium

textured to moderately fine textured soil

that are deep to hardpan, or very deep

on low terraces. Neutral to mildly

alkaline.

Tokay-Acampo: Moderately well-to

well-drained, moderately coarse to

medium textured that are deep to

cemented hardpan or are very deep on

low fan terraces. Mildly alkaline to

slightly acid.

Nearly Level to Undulating Soils on

Low Terraces

Madera-San Joaquin-Burella:

Moderately well-and well drained,

moderately coarse to medium textured

that are moderately deep or deep to

cemented hardpan. Slightly acid.

Nearly Level to Steep Soils on Dissected

Terraces, Fan Terrace, High Terraces

and Hills

Cometa-San Joaquin-Rocklin:

Moderately well drained, moderately

coarse textured soils that are moderately

deep to weakly cemented sediment, or

a cemented hardpan on dissected

terraces. Slightly to moderately acid.

Pentz-Pardee-Keyes-HadslkevilleMokelumne: Moderately well drained

and well drained, moderately coarse

texture and gravelly medium textured

soils that are shallow to sandstone,

conglomerate, or cemented hardpan on

hills and high terraces. Moderately acid.

Redding-Redbluff-Yellowlark:

Moderately well drained, gravelly

medium textured soils that are

moderately deep and deep to a

cemented hardpan, mainly on fan

terraces and high terraces. Moderately

acid.

Undulating to Hilly Soils on Low

Foothills

Auburn-Whiterock-Argonaut:

Somewhat excessively and well-drained

soils moderately coarse to moderately

fine textured that are very shallow to

moderately deep. Moderately acid.

According to Mr. Davis, soils below

Mean Sea Level have been, as much as

possible, differentiated and excluded

from the proposed Lodi viticultural area

expansion due to a differing moisture

control regime, geomorphic position

and relative organic matter content.

Mr. Davis stated that, with respect to

viticultural use and management, water

tables north of Walnut Grove Road

within the proposed expansion area are

lower (deeper) than further south. Vine

moisture control is critical to wine grape

quality prior to harvest. Ripening varies

among grape varieties that are usually

segregated into individual blocks, fields

or specific moisture control systems that

are regulated by irrigation or soil profile

drainage, or both. Soils above Mean Sea

Level have deep drainage systems, and

allow for water table management in the

root zone and precise moisture control.

The proposed area to the west is at the

zero elevation level.

Mr. Davis asserts that most soils

below elevation 00 are mainly

characterized as Histosols, meaning that

they contain upwards of 20 percent

organic matter, are moderately to

strongly acidic, and represent a unique

and different geomorphological

province than the mineral soils above

Mean Sea Level to the east. The richness

of oxidizing organic matter in the way

of available nutrients to a crop during

the growing season is significantly

higher than contributions from

oxidizing mineral soils, on an annual

basis. Complex chemical reactions

separate the peaty soils below Mean Sea

Level from soils derived from mineral

parent materials from a use and

management standpoint.

Mr. Davis’ Summary and Conclusions

Mr. Davis summarized his comments

by stating the proposed changes to the

Lodi viticultural area are consistent

with geomorphic and soil mapping

units found within the existing

boundaries. Mr. Davis stressed that all

the soils in the proposed expansion

areas are mapped within the existing

Lodi viticultural area. Only soils found

in the existing viticultural area are

proposed for the expansion area, with

the exception of some limited and

isolated inclusions of peaty soils along

the diffuse natural western boundary. A

line conforming to roads, and elevation

contours, roughly at the Mean Sea Level

mark, is intended to separate the

mineral soil from the peats on the west.

County lines, roads and natural features

define the remaining boundaries.

5832 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Proposed Boundaries

The boundaries of the proposed

viticultural area, as expanded, are as

specified in the proposed regulation.

Public Participation—Written

Comments

The petitioner presents evidence of

boundaries and of geographical features

relating to soils. ATF is interested in

comments relating to whether the

geographical features, such as elevation,

exposure, or other physical

characteristics of the proposed

expansion area are more similar to the

existing Lodi viticultural or to the land

outside of the proposed expansion area.

ATF requests comments from all

interested persons. 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 which the commenter

considers to be confidential or

inappropriate for disclosure to the

public should not be included in the

comments. The name of the person

submitting a comment is not exempt

from disclosure.

Comments may be submitted

electronically using ATF’s web site. You

may comment on this proposed notice

by using the form provided through

ATF’s web site. You can reach this

notice and the comment form through

the address http://www.atf.treas.gov/

core/alcohol/rules/rules.htm or by

making the following choices at ATF’s

web site: (1) select ‘‘Core Areas’’ tab; (2)

select ‘‘Alcohol’’ tab; (3) select

‘‘Regulations’’ tab; and (4) select ‘‘notice

of proposed rulemaking (alcohol)’’ line.

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.

Chapter 35, and its implementing

regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not

apply to this notice because no

requirement to collect information is

proposed.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this

proposed regulation will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The expansion

of a viticultural area is neither an

endorsement nor approval by ATF of

the quality of wine produced in the

area, but rather a further identification

of an area that is distinct from

surrounding areas. ATF believes that the

expansion of a viticultural area merely

allows wineries to more accurately

describe the origin of their wines to

consumers. Also it helps consumers

identify the wines they purchase. Thus,

any benefit derived from the use of a

viticultural area name is the result of the

proprietor’s efforts and consumer

acceptance of wine from that 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 by

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 Joyce A.

Drake, Regulations Division, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Administrative practices and

procedures, Consumer protection,

Viticultural areas, 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

Par. 2 Section 9.107 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read

as follows:

§ 9.107 Lodi

(a) * * *

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate

maps for determining the boundaries of

the Lodi viticultural area are 23 U.S.G.S.

7.5 minute series maps and are titled as

follows:

1. ‘‘Valley Springs SW, Calif.’’ (1962)

2. ‘‘Farmington, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1987)

3. ‘‘Peters, Calif.’’ (1952, photo revised

1968, minor revision, 1994)

4. ‘‘Linden, Calif.’’ (1968, minor revision

1993)

5. ‘‘Stockton East, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1987)

6. ‘‘Waterloo, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

inspected 1978)

7. ‘‘Lodi South, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1976)

8. ‘‘Terminous, Calif.’’ (1978, minor

revision 1993)

9. ‘‘Thornton, Calif.’’ (1978)

10. ‘‘Bruceville, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1980)

11. ‘‘Florin, Calif.’’ (1968, photo revised

1980)

12. ‘‘Elk Grove, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1979)

13. ‘‘Sloughhouse, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1980, minor revision 1993)

14. ‘‘Buffalo Creek, Calif.’’ (1967, photo

revised 1980)

15. ‘‘Folsom SE, Calif.’’ (1954, photo

revised 1980)

16. ‘‘Carbondale, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1980, minor revision 1993)

17. ‘‘Goose Creek, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1980, minor revision 1993)

18. ‘‘Clements, Calif.’’ (1968, minor

revision 1993)

19. ‘‘Wallace, Calif.’’ (1962)

20. ‘‘Lodi North, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1976)

21. ‘‘Galt, Calif.’’ (1968, photo revised

1980)

22. ‘‘Clay, Calif.’’ (1968, photo revised

1980, minor revision 1993)

23. ‘‘Lockeford, Calif.’’ (1968, photo

revised 1979, minor revision 1993)

(c ) Boundaries. The Lodi viticultural

area is located in California in the

counties of San Joaquin and

Sacramento.

1. The beginning point is located in the

southeast corner of the viticultural

area, where the Calaveral River

intersects the eastern boundary of

San Joaquin County (‘‘Valley

Springs SW’’ U.S.G.S. map);

2. Thence south along the common

boundary between San Joaquin

County and Stanislaus County to

Highway 4 (beginning in ‘‘Valley

Springs SW’’ map and ending in

‘‘Farmington’’ map);

3. Thence west to Waverly Road, then

south to Highway 4, then west again

along Highway 4 to the point of

intersection with Jack Tone Road

(beginning in Valley Springs SW’’

map passing through ‘‘Peters’’ map

and ending in ‘‘Stockton East’’

map);

4. Thence north along Jack Tone Road

to the point of intersection with

Eightmile Road (beginning in

‘‘Stockton East’’ map and ending in

‘‘Waterloo’’ map);

5. Thence west along Eightmile Road to

the point of intersection with Sea

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5833

Level (beginning in ‘‘Waterloo’’

map, passing through ‘‘Lodi South’’

map and ending in ‘‘Terminous’’

map);

6. Thence north northwest along Sea

Level elevation to the point where

it reaches the unnamed extension of

White Slough (‘‘Terminous’’ map);

7. Thence east along the unnamed

extension of White Slough to the

point where it forks

(‘‘Terminous’’map);

8. Thence northwest and north along the

northern fork of the unnamed

extension of White Slough to its

termination (‘‘Terminous’’ map);

9. Thence due west in a straight line to

Guard Road (‘‘Terminous’’ map);

10. Thence north along Guard Road to

the point of intersection with Victor

Road (beginning in ‘‘Terminous’’

map and ending in ‘‘Thornton’’

map);

11. Thence north northwest in a straight

line to the pumping station of the

north bank of Hog Slough

(‘‘Thornton’’ map);

12. Thence due north along the

unnamed canal, crossing Beaver

Slough and continuing due north

along the unnamed road to the

point where it intersects Walnut

Grove Road at Four Corners

(‘‘Thornton’’ map);

13. Thence west along Walnut Grove

Road to the point where it intersects

South Mokelumne River

(‘‘Thornton’’ map);

14. Thence north along South

Mokelumne River to the point

where Mokelumne River divides

into North and South forks

(‘‘Thornton’’ map);

15. Thence north and east along

Mokelumne River to the point

where it intersects Interstate

Highway 5 (beginning in

‘‘Thornton’’ map and ending in

‘‘Bruceville’’ map);

16. Thence northwest along Interstate

Highway 5 to its intersection with

an unnamed road (known locally as

Hood-Franklin Road) (beginning in

the ‘‘Bruceville’’ map and ending in

the ‘‘Florin’’ map);

17. Thence east along Hood-Franklin

Road to its intersection with

Franklin Boulevard (‘‘Florin’’ map);

18. Thence northeast along the Franklin

Boulevard to its meeting point with

the section line running due east

and its connection with the western

end of Sheldon Road (‘‘Florin’’

map);

19. Thence due east along the section

line connecting to the western end

of Sheldon Road (‘‘Florin’’ map);

20. Thence due east along Sheldon Road

to its intersection with the Central

California Traction Co. Railroad

(beginning in ‘‘Florin’’ map and

ending in ‘‘Elk Grove’’ map);

21. Thence southeast along the Central

California Tracton Co. Railroads to

its point of intersection with Grant

Line Road (‘‘Elk Grove’’ map);

22. Thence northeast along Grant Line

Road to the point of intersection

with California State Highway 16

(beginning in ‘‘Elk Grove’’ map,

passing through ‘‘Sloughhouse’’

map and ending in ‘‘Buffalo Creek’’

map);

23. Thence southeast along California

State Highway 16 to the point of

intersection with Deer Creek

(beginning in ‘‘Buffalo Creek’’ map

and ending in ‘‘Sloughhouse’’ map);

24. Thence northeast along Deer Creek

to the point of intersection with the

eastern boundary of Sacramento

County (beginning in ‘‘Sloughhouse

map and ending in ‘‘Folsom SE’’

map).

25. Thence southeast along the eastern

boundary of Sacramento county and

then along the eastern boundary of

San Joaquin County to the point of

intersection with the Calaveras

River, to the point of beginning

(beginning in ‘‘Folsom SE’’ map,

passing through ‘‘Carbondale’’,

‘‘Goose Creek’’, ‘‘Clements’’ and

‘‘Wallace’’ maps, and ending in

‘‘Valley Springs, SW’’ map).

Signed: January 27, 2000.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–2716 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100, 110 and 165

[CGD01–99–050]

RIN 2115–AA97, AA98, AE46

Temporary Regulations: OPSAIL 2000/

International Naval Review 2000 (INR

2000), Port of New York/New Jersey

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

establish temporary regulations in New

York Harbor, Sandy Hook Bay, the

Hudson and East Rivers, and the Kill

Van Kull for OPSAIL 2000/INR 2000

activities. This action is necessary to

provide for the safety of life on

navigable waters during OPSAIL 2000/

INR 2000. This action is intended to

restrict vessel traffic in portions of New

York Harbor, Sandy Hook Bay, the

Hudson and East Rivers, and the Kill

Van Kull.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Coast Guard on or before

March 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments

and related material to the Waterways

Oversight Branch (CGD01–99–050),

Coast Guard Activities New York, 212

Coast Guard Drive, Staten Island, New

York 10305, or deliver them to room 203

at the same address. Coast Guard

Activities New York maintains the

public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments and material received from

the public, as well as documents

indicated in this preamble as being

available in the docket, will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 205, the

Waterways Oversight Branch of Coast

Guard Activities New York, between 8

a.m., e.s.t. and 3 p.m., e.s.t. Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant J. Lopez, Waterways

Oversight Branch, Coast Guard

Activities New York (718) 354–4193.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related material. If you

do so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking (CGD01–99–050),

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit all comments

and related material in an unbound

format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches,

suitable for copying. If you would like

to know they reached us, please enclose

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope. We will consider all

comments and material received during

the comment period. We may change

this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for a meeting by writing to the

Waterways Oversight Branch of Coast

Guard Activities New York at the

address under ADDRESSES explaining

why one would be beneficial. If we

determine that one would aid this

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time

and place announced by a later notice

in the Federal Register.