66518 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

submissions and oral presentations (if

any), and then decide whether to

forward a recommendation for sanction

to the Commission. If the General

Counsel decides not to forward a

written sanction recommendation, the

matter is closed, and the General

Counsel will inform the attorney and

the Executive Director in writing.

(4) The General Counsel’s decision to

close the matter during the first or

second stage is final and nonreviewable.

(c)(1) The third stage begins when the

General Counsel forwards the record to

the Commission. The record will consist

of the complaint, all information

submitted in writing during the second

stage or at the oral presentation,

exhibits, the transcript of any oral

presentation, and the General Counsel’s

written sanction recommendation. The

Commission will review the record and

decide to impose a sanction or close the

matter. The Secretary of the

Commission will inform the attorney

and the Executive Director in writing of

the decision.

(2) At the beginning of the third stage,

the General Counsel will designate a

lawyer employed by the Commission

and not involved in the matter to advise

the Commission.

(3) The Executive Director and the

General Counsel may designate

someone employed by the Commission

to act for them at any stage under this

procedure.

§ 1026.5 Sanctions.

(a) The following are possible

sanctions against an attorney for

prohibited conduct:

(1) Censure. Issue a public censure to

the attorney that describes the

misconduct.

(2) Suspension. Suspend the attorney,

for a designated period of time, from

participation in any matter before the

Commission.

(3) Permanent Exclusion. Permanently

bar the attorney from participation in

any matter before the Commission.

(4) Other. Any sanction deemed

appropriate by the Commission.

(b) If any sanction is imposed, the

General Counsel will notify all state and

District of Columbia bars before which

the attorney is admitted to practice.

§ 1026.6 Information disclosure.

Information disclosure under this

section is governed by the provisions of

the Freedom of Information Act and 16

CFR Part 1015.

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–28202 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 905]

RIN 1512–AA07

Long Island Viticultural Area

(2000R–170P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is

considering the establishment of a

viticultural area to be known as ‘‘Long

Island,’’ located in Nassau and Suffolk

counties, New York. This viticultural

area encompasses the two existing

appellations, ‘‘The Hamptons’’ and

‘‘North Fork of Long Island,’’ as well as

the addition of the remaining areas of

Nassau and Suffolk counties. This

proposal is the result of a petition filed

by Richard Olsen-Harbich on behalf of

Raphael Winery and the Petrocelli

Family, as well as Karen Meredith of

Broadfields. Mr. Olsen-Harbich believes

that the region he refers to as ‘‘Long

Island’’ possesses viticultural conditions

which are distinguishable from the rest

of New York State and the bordering

areas of New Jersey and Connecticut.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by January 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O.

Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091–

0221, (Attention: Notice No. 905). See

‘‘Public Participation’’ section of this

notice if you want to comment by

facsimile or e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20226 (202–927–9347).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background on Viticultural Areas

What Is ATF’s Authority To Establish a

Viticultural Area?

ATF published Treasury Decision

ATF–53 (43 FR 37672, 54624) on

August 23, 1978. This decision revised

the regulations in 27 CFR part 4,

Labeling and Advertising of Wine, 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 in the labeling and advertising of

wine.

On October 2, 1979, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–60 (44 FR

56692), which added a new part 9 to 27

CFR, American Viticultural Areas, for

providing the listing of approved

American viticultural areas, the names

of which may be used as appellations of

origin.

What Is the Definition of an American

Viticultural Area?

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

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographical

features. Viticultural features such as

soil, climate, elevation, topography, etc.,

distinguish it from surrounding areas.

What Is Required to Establish a

Viticultural Area?

Any interested person may petition

ATF to establish a grape-growing region

as a viticultural area. The petition

should include:

• Evidence that the name of the

proposed viticultural area is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the area specified in the petition;

• Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area

are as specified in the petition;

• Evidence relating to the

geographical features (climate, soil,

elevation, physical features, etc.) which

distinguish the viticultural features of

the proposed area from surrounding

areas;

• 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

• A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S.

map(s) with the boundaries prominently

marked.

2. Long Island Petition

ATF has received a petition from

Richard Olsen-Harbich on behalf of

Raphael Winery, the Petrocelli Family,

and Karen Meredith of Broadfields,

proposing to establish a viticultural area

in Nassau and Suffolk counties, New

York, to be known as ‘‘Long Island.’’

This proposed viticultural area

encompasses the two existing

appellations, ‘‘The Hamptons, Long

Island’’ and ‘‘North Fork of Long

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66519

Island,’’ as described in 27 CFR 9.101

and 9.113, as well as the remaining

areas of Nassau and Suffolk counties,

New York. The proposed area does not

include Kings County (Brooklyn) or

Queens County, New York.

The proposed area encompasses

approximately 1,170 square miles or

749,146 acres. Over 2,500 acres of

vineyards are currently planted in the

proposed ‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural area

and the area presently boasts thirtyeight vineyard and/or winery

businesses.

What Name Evidence Has Been

Provided?

The petitioner offered the following as

evidence that the name ‘‘Long Island’’

refers to the proposed area. The name

‘‘Long Island’’ has been in continuous

use from 1616 to the present to

represent the island on which the

proposed viticultural area is located.

However, the Long Island Travel Guide

(1997) states that the name ‘‘Long

Island’’ is commonly known to mean

Nassau and Suffolk counties

exclusively. Also, the 1999 Long Island

Almanac (33rd ed.) covers Nassau and

Suffolk counties only.

According to the petitioner, the Bell

Atlantic White Pages lists

approximately 1,150 business telephone

listings in Suffolk and Nassau counties

using the term ‘‘Long Island.’’ By

comparison, the White Pages in

Brooklyn and Queens reflect almost no

usage of the term ‘‘Long Island’’ to

describe businesses located there. In

addition, the petitioner submitted, as

evidence, several maps, newspaper, and

magazine articles which refer to the

proposed viticultural area as ‘‘Long

Island.’’

What Boundary Evidence Has Been

Provided?

The petitioner has submitted, as

boundary evidence, the following maps

on which the name ‘‘Long Island’’

prominently appears:

1. U.S.G.S. Map (New York, N.Y.; N.J.;

Conn. 1960 (revised 1979));

2. U.S.G.S. Map (Hartford, Conn.;

N.Y.; N.J.; Mass. 1962 (revised 1975));

and

3. U.S.G.S. Map (Providence, R.I.;

Mass.; Conn.; N.Y. 1947 (revised 1969)).

The proposed ‘‘Long Island’’

viticultural area is located on the

eastern part of Long Island, New York.

The proposed area is surrounded by the

Queens County line on the west, Long

Island Sound to the north, the Atlantic

Ocean to the south and Block Island

Sound and Fishers Island Sound to the

east.

Long Island, New York, has four

counties: Kings (commonly known as

Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk.

The petitioner contends that the

appropriate western boundary for the

proposed area is the Queens County line

because Kings and Queens counties are

not suitable for viticultural purposes.

The petitioner states that commercial

farms no longer exist in Kings or Queens

counties and that these counties are

densely populated urban areas. In

addition, the name ‘‘Long Island’’ is

used in common parlance to refer to the

Nassau and Suffolk counties

exclusively.

What Evidence Relating to Geographical

Features Has Been Provided?

• Soil: The soils of the proposed

‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural area are

glacial in origin. The petitioner asserts

that in general, the soils of the proposed

area contain a greater percentage of sand

and gravel and a lower percentage of

silt, loam and clay than in the soil

associations and series found in

bordering areas. According to the

petitioner, soils in the proposed area

also lack any real percentage of natural

limestone when compared to

surrounding regions. The petitioner

asserts that the soils of the proposed

area are more acidic and make an

agricultural liming program

indispensable to any vineyard

operation. Because of this factor, the

soils of the proposed area are also

slightly lower in natural fertility and

water-holding capacity than neighboring

areas. According to the petitioner, this

difference in soil types leads to a very

unique and distinct ‘‘terroir’’ for the

proposed area—sandy loams will warm

up faster, drain better, and allow deeper

root penetration than soils in bordering

areas, which contain greater amounts of

silt, clay and rock.

The soils of the proposed ‘‘Long

Island’’ viticultural area are fairly

uniform in that they are predominately

glacial till and glacial outwash in

nature, are very low in organic matter,

and contain few, if any, large mineral

deposits or exposed rock formations.

Many of the soil series including the

Wallington, Sudbury, Scio, Montauk,

Plymouth and Riverhead Soil Series are

common throughout the entire proposed

area.

The petitioner states that one of the

most distinctive features of the

proposed ‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural area

is the vast quantity of sandy loam soil

deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch

of the Quarternary Period. This soil was

deposited during the last four major

glacial stages of this Epoch. From oldest

to youngest they are: Nebraskan,

Kansan, Illoian, and Wisconsin. Because

of this, the area between the surface soil

and bedrock areas is several hundred

feet.

By contrast, the nearest surface

bedrock begins near the Queens County

line. Some areas of Queens show

exposed bedrock formations while the

bedrock layer in the proposed ‘‘Long

Island’’ viticultural area can be as much

as 500 feet below the surface. For this

reason, the soils found in Queens

County are much shallower than the

typical soils found in the proposed area

and are not suitable for growing grapes.

In addition, Queens County, which is

considered part of New York City, is

completely urbanized and contains

essentially no agricultural land. The

petitioner states that most of the soil

series now identified in Queens are

known as anthropgenic soils. These

soils are described as having properties

that are dominantly derived from

human activities. Out of the 30 soil

types found in the region of Queens

County, only three are also found in the

proposed ‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural

area.

• Topography and Terrain: The

petitioner states that the proposed

‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural area is unique

from its bordering regions in that it

lacks any real undulations, rock

outcrops or muckland areas. By

contrast, the Highland Basin, located

immediately to the west-northwest of

the proposed area and encompassing the

areas of northern New Jersey, the

Hudson Highlands region of southern

New York (including Manhattan,

Westchester, the Bronx, and parts of

Brooklyn and Staten Island), and upland

parts of Connecticut, is a rugged, hillyto-mountainous terrain. Similarly, the

Newark and Atlantic Basins, located

directly to the northeast and southwest

of the proposed area, contain

characteristic sedimentary sandstones

and mudrocks that usually bear a red or

brownish appearance from an

abundance of iron oxide minerals

(hematite and limonite). None of these

geologic formations exist in the

proposed area.

• Climate: The petitioner states that

the moderating influence of the

proposed ‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural

area’s surrounding water is evident in

the temperature data. In terms of

average temperatures, the proposed area

shows the highest average annual winter

temperature compared to the

surrounding areas. The proposed area’s

average low temperature over thirty

years is 43.5 degrees Fahrenheit (43.5

°F), 2.5 °F warmer than the area of

Westchester County and downstate New

York, and 2.2 °F warmer annually than

66520 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the average from New Jersey. The

proposed area is also over 4 °F warmer

on average than Connecticut.

The petitioner states that the

proposed ‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural area

also has the least extreme winter low

temperatures than its surrounding areas

with the lowest average being ¥5.67 °F.

New Jersey was 1.63 °F colder at ¥7.3

°F. Westchester/Downstate New York

and Connecticut were seen to have

winter low temperatures considerably

colder than the proposed area.

Connecticut can experience

temperatures as low as ¥13.5 °F which

is 7.83 °F colder than the proposed area.

Westchester/Downstate New York

proved to be the coldest with low

temperatures reaching ¥15.3 °F in some

years which is 9.63 °F colder than the

proposed area.

According to the petitioner, based on

the standard University of California at

Davis (UCD) temperature summation

definition of climatic regions or zones,

the proposed ‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural

area would appear to fall into high

Region II (less than 3,000 degree days).

Connecticut on the average is a

borderline Region II with some years

having Region I (less than 2,500 degree

days) conditions. New Jersey is solidly

classified as a Region III (less than 3,500

degree days), with some locations

approaching Region IV (less than 4000

degree days) status in warmer years. The

proposed area historically has an

average of 166 more degree-days than

Westchester/Downstate NY and as much

as 324 more degree-days than

Connecticut.

The petitioner states that on average,

the proposed ‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural

area experiences 204 frost-free days

during the growing season. This is 31

days longer than New Jersey, 37 days

longer than Westchester/Downstate NY

and as much as 50 days longer than the

Connecticut average. The proposed area

can therefore have as much as four to

seven weeks more growing season than

any of the surrounding land masses.

The petitioner states that on an

average annual basis, the proposed

‘‘Long Island’’ viticultural area has the

lowest levels of precipitation of all the

surrounding areas with 42 inches

annually. The annual difference is 3.4

inches less than Westchester/Downstate

NY, 3.8 inches less than New Jersey and

4.1 inches less than Connecticut. The

reason for this difference is attributed to

the moderating influence of Long Island

Sound waters.

3. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Is This a Significant Regulatory Action

as Defined by 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.

How Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Apply to This Proposed Rule?

The proposed regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The establishment of a viticultural area

is neither an endorsement or approval

by ATF of the quality of wine produced

in the area, but rather an identification

of an area that is distinct from

surrounding areas. ATF believes that the

establishment of viticultural areas

merely allows wineries to more

accurately describe the origin of their

wines to consumers, and 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 own

efforts and consumer acceptance of

wines from that area. No new

requirements are proposed.

Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required.

Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to This Proposed Rule?

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 of

proposed rulemaking because no

requirement to collect information is

proposed.

4. Public Participation

Who May Comment on This Notice?

ATF requests comments from all

interested parties. In addition, ATF

specifically requests comments on the

clarity of this proposed rule and how it

may be made easier to understand.

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.

Can I Review Comments Received?

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 the Liaison and

Public Information, Room 6480, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20226. For information

on filing a Freedom of Information Act

request for a copy of the comments,

please refer to the internet address:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/about/foia/

foia.htm.

Will ATF Keep My Comments

Confidential?

ATF will not recognize any comment

as confidential. All comments and

materials will be disclosed to the public.

If you consider your material to be

confidential or inappropriate for

disclosure to the public, you should not

include it in the comments. We will also

disclose the name of any person who

submits a comment.

During the comment period, any

person may request an opportunity to

present oral testimony at a public

hearing. However, the Director reserves

the right to determine, in light of all

circumstances, whether a public hearing

will be held.

How Do I Send Facsimile Comments?

You may submit comments by

facsimile transmission to (202) 927–

8525. Facsimile comments must:

• Be legible.

• Reference this notice number.

• Be on paper 81⁄2′′ × 11′′ in size.

• Contain a legible written signature.

• Be not more than three pages.

We will not acknowledge receipt of

facsimile transmissions. We will treat

facsimile transmissions as originals.

How Do I Send Electronic Mail (E-Mail)

Comments?

You may submit comments by e-mail

by sending the comments to

nprm@atfhq.atf.treas.gov. You must

follow these instructions. E-mail

comments must:

• Contain your name, mailing

address, and e-mail address.

• Reference this notice number.

• Be legible when printed on not

more than three pages, 81⁄2′′ × 11′′ in

size.

We will not acknowledge receipt of email. We will treat comments submitted

by e-mail as originals.

How Do I Send Comments to the ATF

Internet Web Site?

You may also submit comments using

the comment form provided with the

online copy of the proposed rule on the

ATF internet web site at http://

www.atf.treas.gov.

5. Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

is Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66521

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Administrative practice and

procedure, Consumer protection,

Viticultural areas, 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 § 9.170 to read as follows:

§ 9.170 Long Island

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural

area described in this section is ‘‘Long

Island.’’

(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate

maps for determining the boundary of

the Long Island viticultural area are

three United States Geological Survey

(U.S.G.S.) topographic maps (Scale:

1:250,000). They are titled:

(1) ‘‘New York, N.Y.; N.J.; Conn.,’’

1960 (revised 1979);

(2) ‘‘Hartford, Conn.; N.Y.; N.J.;

Mass.,’’ 1962 (revised 1975); and

(3) ‘‘Providence, R.I.; Mass.; Conn.;

N.Y.,’’ 1947 (revised 1969).

(c) Boundaries. The Long Island

viticultural area includes approximately

1,170 square miles or 749,146 acres and

is made up of the counties of Nassau

and Suffolk, New York, including all off

shore islands in those counties.

Approved: October 27, 2000.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–28361 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P