Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19917 

Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Includible 

amount 

Additional Annuity ...................................................................... $34,560 Deferral Period $453,026 $453,026 

Additional Annuity ...................................................................... 28,800 Deferral Period $403,193 403,193

Annuity in Year of Death ........................................................... 144,000 $2,117,647 ........... .................... .................... 2,117,647 

Total amount included in gross estate (sum) .................... .................... .............................. .................... .................... 2,973,866 

(iv) A total corpus amount (as defined in 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of this section) of 

$2,973,866 constitutes the principal required 

as of D’s date of death to produce (without 

reducing or invading principal) the annual 

payments that D would have received if D 

had survived and continued to receive the 

retained annuity. Therefore, $2,973,866 of 

the trust corpus is includible in D’s gross 

estate under section 2036(a)(1). The 

remaining $226,134 of the trust corpus is not 

includible in D’s gross estate under section 

2036(a)(1). The result would be the same if 

D’s retained annuity instead had been 

payable to D for a term of 5 years, or until 

D’s prior death, at which time the GRAT 

would have terminated and the trust corpus 

would have become payable to another. 

(v) If, instead, D’s annuity was to have been 

paid on a monthly or quarterly basis, then the 

periodic addition would have to be adjusted 

as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B)(3) of 

this section. Specifically, in Column D of the 

Table for years 4 and 5 in this example, the 

amount of the principal required would be 

computed by multiplying the periodic 

addition by the appropriate factor from Table 

K or J of § 20.2036–7(d)(6) before dividing as 

indicated and computing the amounts in 

Columns E through G. In addition, Column 

D in year 3 also would have to be so adjusted. 

Under the facts presented, section 2039 does 

not apply to include any amount in D’s gross 

estate by reason of this retained interest. See 

§ 20.2039–1(e). 

(3) * * * Paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 

section is applicable to estates of 

decedents dying on or after the date of 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the Treasury decision adopting these 

rules as final regulations. The 

introductory text of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) 

of this section, Example 1 of paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii) of this section, all of paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section, and Example 7 

of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, 

are applicable to estates of decedents 

dying on or after the date of publication 

in the Federal Register of the Treasury 

decision adopting these rules as final 

regulations. 

Linda E. Stiff, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–10003 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[TTB Docket No. 2007–0060; Notice No. 94; 

Re: Notice Nos. 71 and 72] 

RIN 1513–AB27 

Proposed Establishment of the Paso 

Robles Westside Viticultural Area 

(2006R–087P) 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau announces the 

withdrawal of its proposal to establish 

the Paso Robles Westside viticultural 

area within the existing Paso Robles 

viticultural area in San Luis Obispo 

County, California. We take this action 

because, given the conflicting 

information before us, we cannot 

conclude that a delimited grape-growing 

region exists that is recognized by the 

name Paso Robles Westside. 

DATES: Notice No. 71 is withdrawn as of 

April 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. 

A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., 158, 

Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415– 

271–1254. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

provides that these regulations should, 

among other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels, and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the regulations 

promulgated under the FAA Act. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) allows the establishment of 

definitive viticultural areas and the use 

of their names as appellations of origin 

on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth 

standards for petitions for the 

establishment of viticultural areas and 

contains the list of approved viticultural 

areas. 

Definition 

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines 

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region 

distinguishable by geographical 

features, the boundaries of which have 

been recognized and defined in part 9 

of the regulations. These designations 

allow vintners and consumers to 

attribute a given quality, reputation, or 

other characteristic of a wine made from 

grapes grown in an area to its 

geographic origin. The establishment of 

viticultural areas allows vintners to 

describe more accurately the origin of 

their wines to consumers and helps 

consumers to identify wines they may 

purchase. Establishment of a viticultural 

area is neither an approval nor an 

endorsement by TTB of the wine 

produced in that area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations outlines the procedure for 

proposing an American viticultural area 

and provides that any interested party 

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

Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations 

requires the petition to include— 

• Evidence that the proposed 

viticultural area is locally and/or 

nationally known by the name specified 

in the petition; 

• Historical or current evidence that 

supports setting the boundary of the 

proposed viticultural area as the 

petition specifies; 

• Evidence relating to the geographic 

features, such as climate, soils, 

elevation, and physical features, that 

distinguish the proposed viticultural 

area from surrounding areas; 

19918 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

• A description of the specific 

boundary of the proposed viticultural 

area, based on features found on United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; 

and 

• A copy of the appropriate USGS 

map(s) with the proposed viticultural 

area’s boundary prominently marked. 

Publication of Notice No. 71 

On January 24, 2007, TTB published 

Notice No. 71, a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, in the Federal Register (72 

FR 3088) regarding the proposed 

establishment of the ‘‘Paso Robles 

Westside’’ American viticultural area in 

northern San Luis Obispo County, 

California. We undertook that action in 

response to a petition filed on behalf of 

21 vintners and grape growers with 

interests in the proposed viticultural 

area. As outlined in Notice No. 71, the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area lay west of the Salinas 

River but entirely within the existing 

Paso Robles viticultural area (27 CFR 

9.84), which in turn is entirely within 

the existing, multi-county Central Coast 

viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75). 

Comments on the proposed Paso 

Robles Westside viticultural area were 

originally due on or before March 26, 

2007. However, on March 23, 2007, in 

response to a request from other Paso 

Robles wine industry members, we 

extended the comment period for Notice 

No. 71 until April 24, 2007 (see Notice 

No. 72 published in the Federal 

Register at 72 FR 13720 on March 23, 

2007). 

Shortly before publication of Notice 

No. 71, TTB received 12 petitions from 

the Paso Robles AVA Committee 

(PRAVAC), one of which proposed the 

expansion of the existing Paso Robles 

viticultural area and 11 of which 

proposed the establishment of 11 

smaller viticultural areas within the 

expanded Paso Robles viticultural area. 

Comments Received in Response to 

Notice No. 71 

TTB received 220 comments in 

response to Notice No. 71. Of those, 144 

supported the establishment of the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area, 61 opposed it, and, of 

the remaining 15 commenters, 2 

requested an extension of time to 

comment and 13 provided comments 

that could not be described as clearly 

supporting or opposing the proposal. 

The 144 supporting comments included 

19 from grape growers and/or wine 

producers and 125 from other sources. 

Of the 61 opposing comments, 43 were 

from grape growers and/or wine 

producers, including a single comment 

from the 59-member PRAVAC. The 

remaining 18 opposing comments were 

from other sources. These comments are 

posted under Notice No. 71 on the TTB 

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

wine_rulemaking.shtml. 

Supporting Comments 

The 19 grape growers and/or wine 

producers supporting the establishment 

of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural 

area agree that the proposed area’s 

topography, climate, and soils are 

different from the rest of the existing 

Paso Robles viticultural area and that 

the area is therefore deserving of 

separate recognition under the Paso 

Robles Westside name. 

Doug Beckett, the owner of Peachy 

Canyon Winery and the proposed Paso 

Robles Westside lead petitioner, 

submitted two strongly supportive 

comments (numbered by TTB as 

comments 55 and 128) for the area’s 

establishment. In comment 55, he 

largely reiterates the petition’s evidence 

and conclusions. He states, for example, 

that the soil analysis report included in 

the petition found that the ‘‘soils 

contained in the Proposed Paso Robles 

Westside AVA are unique to the area.’’ 

In comment 128, Mr. Beckett argues that 

the Paso Robles Westside viticultural 

area petition does not conflict with the 

separate PRAVAC effort to expand the 

existing Paso Robles viticultural area 

and then sub-divide the resulting larger 

Paso Robles viticultural area into 11 

smaller viticultural areas. 

Other Paso Robles grape growers and 

wine producers agree with Mr. Beckett. 

For example, Robert Hartenberger of 

Midnight Cellars (comment 80) and Bob 

Shore of Arroyo Robles Winery 

(comment 84) state that the proposed 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area’s 

climate, topography, soils, and name 

recognition contrast with the east side of 

the existing Paso Robles viticultural 

area, and the Paso Robles Westside 

region is therefore deserving of its own 

viticultural area designation. 

In addition, some Paso Robles wine 

industry members express concern over 

the misuse of the ‘‘Westside’’ name. 

Noting that his winery uses the 

‘‘Westside’’ claim on some wines, Erich 

Russell of Rabbit Ridge Winery 

(comment 71), states that another 

winery uses the ‘‘West side’’ name on a 

wine made from non-West side, and 

even non-Paso Robles, grapes. He states, 

therefore, that TTB should approve the 

Westside petition to stop the misuse of 

the Paso Robles Westside name. Gary 

Conway of Carmody McKnight Estate 

Wines (comment 114) notes that the 

proposed area’s establishment would 

allow those within the area ‘‘to 

determine their own viticultural 

future,’’ and that ‘‘if there are some 

within the area who don’t wish to adopt 

the name, there is such a simple 

solution for them. Don’t use it.’’ 

The 125 other supportive commenters 

include wine consumers familiar with 

the Paso Robles viticultural area, as well 

as wine distributors, retailers, and sales 

personnel. Some comments largely 

focus on the distinctive taste of wines 

produced on the west side of the 

existing Paso Robles viticultural area, 

while others note the rolling topography 

and distinguishable climate and soils to 

the west of the Salinas River. Some 

commenters argue that, based on the 

100-plus year history of the ‘‘Westside’’ 

name, recognition of the Paso Robles 

Westside viticultural area is long 

overdue and that its establishment 

would enhance the entire Paso Robles 

region’s wine industry. Additional 

commenters offer support for evidence 

contained in the Westside petition, 

including its soil analysis section. 

Opposing Comments 

As noted above, TTB received 61 

comments opposing the establishment 

of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural 

area. Of those, 43 comments were from 

grape growers and/or wine producers 

with interests in the existing Paso 

Robles viticultural area. In general, 

these 43 commenters note the location 

of their vineyards and describe 

significant variations in climate, 

geology, soil, and topography within the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area. Some of these 

commenters also describe the 

viticultural similarities between the 

west and east sides of the existing Paso 

Robles viticultural area. 

The 43 grape growers and/or wine 

producer commenters included two 

persons who withdrew their names from 

the Paso Robles Westside petition and 

two persons who were among the 

original 1982 Paso Robles viticultural 

area petitioners. 

Elizabeth Van Steenwyck of Adelaida 

Cellars (comment 121) and Justin 

Baldwin of Justin Vineyards (comment 

124) withdrew their names as 

supporting petitioners for the proposed 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. 

After indicating her specific reasons for 

her withdrawal of support for the 

Westside petition, Ms. Van Steenwyck 

concludes: ‘‘The establishment of a Paso 

Robles Westside AVA has little, if any, 

viticultural relevance, lacks geographic 

definition, and will not serve the best 

interests of the entire Paso Robles wine 

community in the long term.’’ Mr. 

Baldwin states that the PRAVAC 

proposal ‘‘is more comprehensive and is 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 19919 

based on more sound and substantial 

scientific, historic, and climatic data.’’ 

Gary Eberle (comment 86) and 

Herman Schwartz (comment 134), who 

were original 1982 Paso Robles 

viticultural area petitioners, also 

submitted comments opposing Notice 

No. 71. These commenters note the 

diversity of the proposed Paso Robles 

Westside viticultural area’s climate and 

geography and object to the use of the 

Salinas River as its proposed eastern 

boundary line. Also, they state that 

‘‘Paso Robles Westside,’’ as a 

geographical term, could mislead 

consumers. Charging that the Paso 

Robles Westside petition uses ‘‘cherry 

picked’’ data and information, Mr. 

Eberle states: ‘‘When we created such a 

large and diverse AVA we knew that 

down the line there would be a 

movement to create smaller AVAs 

within the area * * * based on sound 

viticultural and scientific information. 

Unfortunately, an application for the 

Paso Robles Westside AVA has been 

filed that is the antithesis of this.’’ 

Concerning geographical diversity, Mr. 

Schwartz remarked: ‘‘Most experienced 

wine people in our area are keenly 

aware of the vast differences in the 

proposed new Westside appellation that 

runs the gamut from one of the hottest, 

flattest and driest areas in the entire 

North County of San Luis Obispo to one 

of the more moderate in temperature, 

slightly rolling hills and the highest 

rainfall in our county, let alone the 

varieties of soil types and the quantity 

and quality of the water.’’ 

While most opposing commenters 

supported other plans to divide the 

existing Paso Robles viticultural area 

into smaller viticultural areas, some did 

not. For example, Richard Sauret, 

president of the Independent Grape 

Growers of the Paso Robles Area, a 

group of 195 growers, states (comment 

213): ‘‘As a native of Paso Robles and a 

grape grower for 55 years I didn’t think 

I would ever see a political fiasco of this 

magnitude in Paso Robles.’’ Mr. Sauret 

opposes all efforts to sub-divide the 

existing Paso Robles viticultural area, 

including the Paso Robles Westside 

petition and the petitions submitted by 

the PRAVAC. 

The PRAVAC submitted a lengthy 

opposing comment (comment 98) on 

behalf of its 59 grape-grower and winery 

members. According to PRAVAC, its 

members farm approximately 1,700 

acres and own 15 wineries in the 

portion of the existing Paso Robles 

viticultural area that is west of the 

Salinas River. As noted above, the 

PRAVAC submitted a petition to TTB to 

expand the existing Paso Robles 

viticultural area and 11 petitions to subdivide the area, as expanded, into 

smaller viticultural areas. The PRAVAC 

notes that 5 of the 11 proposed smaller 

viticultural areas lie wholly or partially 

west of the Salinas River, that is, within 

the proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area. Two of those proposed 

viticultural areas lie on both the east 

and west sides of the Salinas River and 

thus would overlap the proposed Paso 

Robles Westside viticultural area, and 

the other three lie wholly within it. 

The ‘‘Westside’’ name, according to 

the PRAVAC, is not locally or nationally 

known to refer to the proposed 

viticultural area and is confusing, 

misapplied, and inappropriate in the 

context of the petition. The ‘‘Westside’’ 

name, the PRAVAC states, refers to a 

much smaller area, limited to a portion 

of the City of Paso Robles and the entire 

Adelaida District, but not extending to 

the northern or southern limits of the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area boundary line. 

The PRAVAC claims that the Paso 

Robles Westside viticultural area 

petition lacks adequate scientific 

support and justification. The PRAVAC 

notes that its research shows that the 

climate and geographic features of the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area fail to distinguish it 

from the Paso Robles area east of the 

Salinas River. In support of this 

contention, the PRAVAC comment 

includes a point-by-point rebuttal of the 

Paso Robles Westside petition 

researched and written by Dr. Deborah 

Elliott-Fisk, an ecology professor at the 

University of California, Davis. Dr. 

Elliott-Fisk explains that she conducted 

recent in-depth scientific research of the 

Paso Robles viticultural area that 

contributed to the development of the 

one expansion petition and the 11 new 

establishment petitions submitted by 

the PRAVAC. 

Dr. Elliott-Fisk argues that the Salinas 

River does not divide the existing Paso 

Robles viticultural area into two distinct 

east-west regions based on climate, 

geology, soils, topography, elevation, 

landforms, or natural vegetation. She 

states that viticultural conditions within 

the existing Paso Robles viticultural area 

change from north to south instead of 

from east to west. Noting that climates 

change along gradients in latitude, 

longitude, maritime and continental 

position, elevation, orographic position, 

and other physical parameters, Dr. 

Elliott-Fisk states that the existing Paso 

Robles viticultural area ‘‘shows 

incredible diversity in vineyard 

geographics and viticultural 

environments, from an almost desert 

climate in the north to a maritime 

climate in the central portion to a cold, 

wet mountain climate to the south.’’ In 

addition, she also contends that no soil 

series found in the proposed Paso 

Robles Westside viticultural area is 

unique to that area. Based on her 

research, Dr. Elliott-Fisk concludes that 

‘‘[t]he proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area makes no sense from a 

historical, geographical, or viticultural 

perspective’’ and that ‘‘[t]he flawed and 

deficient petition does not support the 

establishment of the proposed Paso 

Robles Westside AVA.’’ 

The PRAVAC comment thus urges 

TTB to reject the Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area petition. As an 

alternative, PRAVAC suggests TTB 

consolidate into one public notice the 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area 

petition with the 12 PRAVAC petitions 

to expand and sub-divide the existing 

Paso Robles viticultural area. The 

commenter also requested a public 

hearing if TTB decides to proceed with 

rulemaking for the Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area. 

Other opposing grape growers and 

wine producers also comment that the 

supporting data for the Paso Robles 

Westside viticultural area petition is, at 

times, inadequate or wrong. They 

believe that the scientific data provided 

in the petition does not support 

establishment of the Paso Robles 

Westside viticultural area. They also 

note that the climate, soils, elevation, 

natural vegetation, and other 

geographical features of the proposed 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area 

fail to distinguish it from other parts of 

the larger Paso Robles viticultural area. 

Further, some commenters state that the 

cooling marine influence coming 

through the Templeton Gap affects 

certain portions of the proposed 

viticultural area more than other areas, 

and that the marine influence 

significantly affects some portions of the 

Paso Robles viticultural area east of the 

Salinas River. 

According to comments of some 

opposing wine industry members, the 

Salinas River, as the eastern boundary 

line for the proposed Paso Robles 

Westside boundary line, is an oversimplification of regional viticultural 

differences that could have long-range 

negative implications for other Paso 

Robles viticultural area petitions. Other 

commenters claim the ‘‘Westside’’ name 

is ambiguous or vague and could 

confuse and mislead consumers. 

The 18 opposing commenters who are 

neither grape growers nor wine 

producers include wine consumers, 

local residents, and scientists with 

expertise in climate, soil and geology. 

Some of these commenters describe the 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area 

19920 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

petition as a wine industry marketing 

effort. A local resident states that the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area ‘‘includes a wide 

diversity of land, climate, geology and 

soils as to be a completely arbitrary 

division.’’ Other commenters contend, 

similar to the PRAVAC, that the 

recognized ‘‘west side’’ of the Paso 

Robles region encompasses only a 

western portion of the City of Paso 

Robles and the Adelaida District, not the 

significantly larger proposed Paso 

Robles Westside viticultural area. 

Dr. Thomas Rice, a certified 

professional soil scientist who provided 

soil information for the Paso Robles 

Westside viticultural area petition, 

submitted two comments opposing 

Notice No. 71 (comments 94 and 129). 

In his opposing comments, Dr. Rice 

states that some of his soils information 

‘‘has been inaccurately quoted’’ and that 

‘‘some erroneous conclusions regarding 

the soils in the Paso Robles AVA have 

been stated in the final petition.’’ He 

adds that ‘‘not a single soil series 

mapped by the USDA that occurs within 

the proposed Paso Robles Westside 

AVA is unique to that area.’’ He 

concludes by urging TTB ‘‘to reject the 

Paso Robles Westside petition based on 

its inaccurate, misleading and false 

statements related to topography and 

soils diversity within the larger Paso 

Robles AVA.’’ 

Opposing commenter Richard 

Hoenisch (comment 112), a plant 

pathologist at the University of 

California, Davis, and the education 

director for the western region of the 

National Plant Diagnostic Network, 

explains that he served for six years as 

the founding manager of the Tablas 

Creek Winery in Paso Robles. Mr. 

Hoenisch states that, based on his past 

and current experience and knowledge, 

the proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area ‘‘includes too many 

different geologies, soil types, and 

micro-climates.’’ Mr. Hoenisch 

concludes that the Paso Robles area 

contains many distinct and excellent 

potential viticultural area sites. 

Mr. Donald Schucraft, a certified 

consulting meteorologist with the 

Western Weather Group, explains in his 

opposing comment (comment 122) that 

in the mid-1990’s he led a team of 

meteorologists and physical scientists 

that established a network of automated 

weather stations in the Paso Robles 

region, and that these stations continue 

to provide key information for localized 

Paso Robles weather forecasts. Based on 

the data from these stations, Mr. 

Schucraft states that the Salinas River 

does not provide a suitable boundary 

line for the many different 

microclimates found in the Paso Robles 

viticultural area. He notes that there are 

distinct microclimates to the west of the 

Salinas River within the proposed Paso 

Robles Westside viticultural area, and 

that these microclimates change from 

north to south as well as to east to west. 

Seasonal rainfall, according to Mr. 

Schucraft, varies from 11 to 12 inches in 

the northern-most part of the proposed 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area to 

27 to 28 inches in the southern-most 

part. Also, air temperatures, influenced 

by the marine air passing through the 

Templeton Gap, and wind speeds, 

influenced by the Salinas River Valley 

Basin, vary widely within the proposed 

viticultural area. Mr. Schucraft 

concludes that observed weather in the 

Paso Robles region fails to define the 

proposed Paso Robles Westside 

viticultural area as a single viticultural 

region, but instead supports the 

existence of multiple viticultural 

regions within the existing Paso Robles 

viticultural area. 

TTB Finding 

TTB notes that there is a marked lack 

of unanimity among the commenters 

concerning the appropriateness of 

establishing the proposed Paso Robles 

Westside viticultural area. While 

substantial petition evidence and a large 

number of comments support the 

establishment of the proposed 

viticultural area, we also received a 

significant number of comments setting 

forth information that refutes, or is 

otherwise inconsistent with that 

petition evidence. Some of those 

comments challenge the 

appropriateness of the Paso Robles 

Westside name. Other commenters, 

including scientific experts, contradict 

the geographical feature evidence 

presented in the petition and relied 

upon by TTB in Notice No. 71 as a basis 

for proposing the establishment of the 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. 

Given the conflicting information 

before us, we cannot conclude that a 

delimited grape-growing region exists 

that is recognized by the name ‘‘Paso 

Robles Westside,’’ or that the area 

described in Notice No. 71 is 

distinguishable by geographical 

features. Accordingly, TTB hereby 

withdraws its proposal to establish the 

Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. 

With regard to the petitions submitted 

by the PRAVAC to establish 11 smaller 

viticultural areas within the Paso Robles 

viticultural area, TTB will review those 

11 petitions independently from this 

regulatory action. A notice regarding the 

PRAVAC proposal to expand the 

existing Paso Robles viticultural area 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 15, 2008 (see Notice No. 85, 73 

FR 40474). 

Signed: February 12, 2009. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: February 27, 2009. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. E9–9855 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[USCG–2009–0110] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Thunder on Niagara, 

Niagara River, North Tonawanda, NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes 

establishment of a safety zone for a 

powerboat race in the Captain of the 

Port Buffalo zone. This proposed rule is 

intended to restrict vessels from areas of 

water during events that pose a hazard 

to public safety. The safety zone 

established by this proposed rule is 

necessary to protect spectators, 

participants, and vessels from the 

hazards associated with a powerboat 

race. 

DATES: Comments and related materials 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before June 29, 2009. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before May 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2009–0110 using one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the