27060 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.

The policies contained in this

proposed rule merely require that HUD

determine whether pre-eviction court

hearings required by the local

jurisdiction provide the basic elements

of due process as further defined by

HUD regulation. Those housing

authorities situated in jurisdictions for

which HUD has made such a due

process determination are permitted to

bypass HUD-mandated administrative

hearings and to rely exclusively on the

local courts.

This proposed rule would provide

that HUD is not required to use 24 CFR

part 10’s notice and comment

procedures for the issuance of due

process determinations. This proposed

rule would effect no changes in the

current relationships between the

Federal government, the States and their

political subdivisions.

C. Impact on the Family

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under Executive

Order 12606, The Family, has

determined that this proposed rule will

not have potential for significant impact

on family formation, maintenance, and

general well-being, and, thus, is not

subject to review under this order. No

significant change in existing HUD

policies or programs will result from

promulgation of this proposed rule, as

those policies and programs relate to

family concerns.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary, in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605

(b)) has reviewed and approved this

proposed rule, and in so doing certifies

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This proposed

rule would merely provide for HUD’s

issuance of due process determinations

without public notice and comment,

and would not have any meaningful

economic impact on any entity.

E. Regulatory Agenda

This proposed rule was listed as item

1370 in HUD’s Semiannual Agenda of

Regulations published on May 8, 1995

(60 FR 23368, 23375) in accordance

with Executive Order 12866 and the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

F. Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule was reviewed by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review. Any

changes made to the proposed rule as a

result of that review are clearly

identified in the docket file, which is

available for public inspection in the

Office of the Department’s Rules Docket

Clerk, Room 10276, 451 Seventh St.,

S.W., Washington, DC, 20410.

List of Subjects

24 CFR Part 10

Administrative practice and

procedure.

24 CFR Part 966

Grant programs—housing and

community development, Public

housing.

Accordingly, 24 CFR parts 10 and 966

are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 10—RULEMAKING: POLICY AND

PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 10

would be revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

2. Section 10.3 would be amended by

adding a new paragraph (c) to read as

follows:

§ 10.3 Applicability.

* * * * *

(c) This part is not applicable to a

determination by HUD under 24 CFR

part 966 (public housing) or 24 CFR part

905 (Indian housing) that the law of a

jurisdiction requires that, prior to

eviction, a tenant be given a hearing in

court which provides the basic elements

of due process (‘‘due process

determination’’).

PART 966—LEASE AND GRIEVANCE

PROCEDURES

3. The authority citation for part 966

would be revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437d,

1437d(k), (1), and (n), and 3535(d).

4. In § 966.4, paragraph (l)(4) would

be revised, to read as follows:

§ 966.4 Lease requirements.

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(4) How tenant is evicted. The PHA

may evict the tenant from the unit

either:

(i) By bringing a court action, or;

(ii) By bringing an administrative

action if law of the jurisdiction permits

eviction by administrative action, after a

due process administrative hearing, and

without a court determination of the

rights and liabilities of the parties. In

order to evict without bringing a court

action, the PHA must afford the tenant

the opportunity for a pre-eviction

hearing in accordance with the PHA

grievance procedure.

* * * * *

5. In § 966.51, paragraph (a)(2) would

be amended by redesignating paragraph

(a)(2)(ii) as paragraph (a)(2)(iv) and by

adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and

(a)(2)(iii), to read as follows:

§ 966.51 Applicability.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) The issuance of a due process

determination by HUD is not subject to

24 CFR part 10, and HUD is not required

to use notice and comment rulemaking

procedures in considering or issuing a

due process determination.

(iii) For guidance of the public, HUD

will publish in the Federal Register a

notice listing the judicial eviction

procedures for which HUD has issued a

due process determination. HUD will

make available for public inspection

and copying a copy of the legal analysis

on which the determinations are based.

* * * * *

Dated: February 14, 1995.

Henry G. Cisneros,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12461 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–32–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 8121]

RIN 1512–AA07

Puget Sound Viticultural Area (94F–

019P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), has

received a petition for the establishment

of a viticultural area in the State of

Washington to be known as ‘‘Puget

Sound.’’ This proposal is the result of a

petition submitted by Gerard and Jo

Ann Bentryn, Owners-Winemakers of

Bainbridge Island Vineyards.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by July 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Chief, Wine, Beer and Spirits

Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221,

Washington, DC 20091–0221 (Attn:

Notice No. 812). Copies of the petition,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27061

the proposed regulations, the

appropriate maps, and written

comments will be available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at: ATF Public Reading Room,

Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure,

Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David W. Brokaw, Wine, Beer and

Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927–8230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 23, 1978, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–53 (43 FR

37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27

CFR Part 4. These regulations allow the

establishment of definitive viticultural

areas. The regulations allow the name of

an approved viticultural area to be used

as an appellation of origin on wine

labels and in wine advertisements. On

October 2, 1979, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–60 [44 56692]

which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR,

providing for the listing of approved

American viticultural areas, the names

of which may be used as appellations of

origin.

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

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographic features,

the boundaries of which have been

delineated in Subpart C of Part 9.

Section 4.25a(e)(2), Title 27, CFR,

outlines the procedure for proposing an

American viticultural area. Any

interested person may petition ATF to

establish a grape-growing region as a

viticultural area. The petition should

include:

(a) Evidence that the name of the

proposed viticultural area is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the area specified in the petition;

(b) Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area

are as specified in the petition;

(c) Evidence relating to the

geographical characteristics (climate,

soil, elevation, physical features, etc.)

which distinguish the viticultural

features of the proposed area from

surrounding areas;

(d) A description of the specific

boundaries of the viticultural area,

based on features which can be found

on United States Geological Survey

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

scale, and;

(e) A copy (or copies) of the

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

proposed boundaries prominently

marked.

Petition

ATF has received a petition from

Gerard and Jo Ann Bentryn of

Bainbridge Island Vineyards & Winery

in Bainbridge Island, Washington,

proposing to establish a new viticultural

area within the State of Washington to

be known as ‘‘Puget Sound.’’ Puget

Sound (or the ‘‘Sound’’) is an inlet of

the Pacific Ocean in northwestern

Washington, extending about 100 miles

south from Admiralty Inlet and Juan de

Fuca Strait to Olympia. The proposed

viticultural area lies within the land

basin surrounding the Sound. Eight

letters of support from wineries and

vineyards located within the proposed

area were included with the petition.

These letters of support were from:

Mount Baker Vineyards, Whidbey

Island Winery, Lopez Island Vineyards

Inc., E.B. Foote Winery, Blue Apple

Vineyard, Molly’s Vineyard, Coolen

Wine Cellar, and Johnson Creek Winery/

Alice’s Restaurant.

The proposed Puget Sound

viticultural area is located in the

northwestern portion of Washington

State. The entire Puget Sound watershed

contains 13,100 square miles of land,

150 square miles of fresh water, and

2,500 square miles of saltwater. The

proposed Puget Sound viticultural area

contains approximately 55% of the

watershed’s land area and water or

7,150 square miles of land and 1,500

square miles of water for a total area of

8,650 square miles. It has a maximum

length of 190 miles from north to south

and 60 miles from east to west, although

it is most often less than 45 miles wide.

Evidence That the Name of the Area is

Locally or Nationally Known

The name ‘‘Puget Sound’’ was

established in 1791 by Captain George

Vancouver when he named, explored,

and mapped the area while in service to

the British Admiralty. His maps and

those of subsequent explorers, settlers

and government agencies show the

Puget Sound area with the countryside

drained by rivers flowing into Puget

Sound. Numerous references exist

indicating the general use of the name

‘‘Puget Sound’’ to refer to the petitioned

area. The petitioners included copies of

title pages of various publications, guide

and tour book references, public

telephone book listings, and Federal and

State agency maps, to illustrate the use

of the name. They also submitted an

excerpt from, ‘‘Touring the Washington

Wine Country,’’ 1993, published by the

Washington Wine Commission. This

publication discusses grape growing in

western Washington and states that,

‘‘[t]he expansive Puget Sound basin

offers a temperate climate that rarely

suffers from prolonged freezing weather

in the winter and quite often enjoys a

long and warm summer growing

season.’’

Historical or Current Evidence That the

Boundaries of the Viticultural Area Are

as Specified in the Petition

The proposed viticultural area is

located on the land mass surrounding

Puget Sound and know as the Puget

Sound basin. The petitioners explained

that there are no exacting and

commonly understood boundaries for

the basin. The basin boundaries, for

example, can extend up to the crests of

the Olympic and Cascade mountain

ranges to include the entire watershed.

However, individuals in western

Washington State commonly refer to the

lowland areas surrounding the Sound as

the Puget Sound basin. It is these

lowland areas that the petitioners feel

are suited for viticulture.

The petitioners stated that, ‘‘Puget

Sound has boulders determined

absolutely by the forces of nature, and

recognized by common cultural use. We

merely used those public roads that

most closely fit within those natural

boundaries of terminal moraine

[accumulation of boundaries, stones, or

other debris carried and deposited at the

edges of the farthest reaches of a

glacier’s advance], rainfall lines

(isohyets), and temperature to draw

enforceable borders.’’ [definition added]

The petitioners also state that, ‘‘[t]he

proposed viticultural area is smaller

than the basin because not all of the

basin is suitable for viticulture. Areas

with elevations greater than 600 feet are

generally too wet or too cold in this

region so they have been excluded.’’

Evidence Relating to the Geographical

Features (Climate, Soil, Elevation,

Physical Features, etc.) Which

Distinguish Viticultural Features of the

Proposed Area From Surrounding Areas

Climate

The climate of Puget Sound is well

differentiated from that of surrounding

areas. The Olympic Mountains to the

west and the Cascade Mountains to the

east protect the region from the cool wet

influence of the Pacific Ocean and the

extreme summer and winter

temperatures of eastern Washington.

The Strait of Juan de Fuca and

associated waterways separate Puget

Sound from the cooler summer areas to

the north. Foothills to the south of the

proposed Puget Sound viticultural area

are the limit of the area influenced by

the moderating effect of the waters of

the Sound. Both summer and winter
27062 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

temperatures are significantly cooler in

the hills and mountains to the west,

south, and east.

The western, eastern and southern

boundaries of the proposed Puget Sound

viticultural area closely follow the line

formed by a growing season of 180 days

and the 60 inch isohyet of annual

precipitation. All areas within the

proposed viticultural area below 600

feet in elevation have a 180 day or

longer growing season with 60 inches or

less of annual rainfall, and 15 inches or

less of rainfall in the months of April to

October (inclusive).

Areas outside of, but adjacent to, the

proposed viticultural area to the west,

south, and east have a growing season

of generally less than 180 days, with

more than 60 inches of annual rainfall,

and more than 15 inches of rainfall in

the months of April to October

(inclusive). Examples of weather

recording stations surrounding the

Puget Sound region are as follows: To

the west is Forks, with a growing season

of 175 days and an annual precipitation

of 118 inches (38 inches April to

October). To the southeast is Paradise

Ranger Station (Mount Rainier National

Park), with a growing season of 50 days

and an annual precipitation of 106

inches (39 inches April to October). To

the east is Diablo Dam with a growing

season of 170 days and an annual

precipitation of 72 inches (23 inches

from April to October). To the northeast

is Heather Meadows Recreational Area

(Mt. Baker National Forest) with a

growing season of 150 days and an

annual precipitation of 110 inches (44

inches from April to October).

The northerly border of the proposed

viticultural area closely conforms to the

temperature boundary of areas

experiencing a mean high temperature

in the warmest month (July) of 72

degrees Fahrenheit or greater. Cool air

from the Pacific Ocean moves east

through the Strait of Juan de Fuca

during the growing season limiting the

reliable ripening of winegrapes in the

areas west of the Elwha River and

outside the line formed by the western

boundaries of Clallam, San Juan, and

Whatcom Counties and the northern

boundary of Whatcom County.

Example of areas to the northwest of

the proposed viticultural area with

mean high temperatures in the warmest

month which are lower than 72 degrees

Fahrenheit are: Forks, Washington, 71

degrees F; Clallum Bay, Washington, 67

degrees F; Victoria, British Columbia, 68

degrees F; and Sidney, British

Columbia, 67 degrees F.

Degree Days

Total degree days as measured by the

scale developed by Winkler and

Amerine of the University of California

(Davis) range between 1300 at the

northern border, to 2200 in the south.

Typical readings are: Friday Harbor

1380, Blaine 1480, Sequim 1310, Port

Townsend 1480, Mt. Vernon 1530,

Coupeville 1360, Monroe 1820, Bothell

1520, Kent 1940, Seattle (U of W) 2160,

Bremerton 1810, Vashon 1730,

Grapeview 2010, Puyallup 1770,

Tacoma 1940, and Olympia 2160. There

is a significant temperature variation

from north to south. According to the

petitioner, this temperature variation is

within a range that will allow the same

types of grapes to be grown throughout

the proposed area.

Rainfall

Rainfall in the proposed Puget Sound

viticultural area is substantially less

than in surrounding areas. It ranges

from 17 inches annually in the north to

60 inches in the south. Typical amounts

are: Friday Harbor 28′′, Blaine 35′′,

Sequim 17′′, Port Townsend 18′′, Mt.

Vernon 32′′, Coupeville 18′′, Monroe

47′′, Bothell 40′′, Kent 38′′, Seattle (U of

W) 35′′, Bremerton 39′′, Vashon 47′′,

Grapeview 53′′, Puyallup 41′′, Tacoma

37′′, and Olympia 52′′. Growing season

rainfall ranges from 8 inches in the

north to 15 inches in the south. Outside

of the proposed boundaries, the rainfall

ranges from 70 to 220 inches annually.

Overall, the proposed Puget Sound

viticultural area can be characterized as

having a growing season of over 180

days, annual degree day averages

between 1300 and 2200, and annual

rainfall of 60 inches or less.

Soils

Soils in the proposed Puget Sound

viticultural area are completely unlike

those of the surrounding upland areas in

that they are the result of the advance

and withdrawal of the Vashon

glaciation. This most recent glaciation

(10,000 years ago) coincided at its limits

with the eastern, southern, and

southwestern boundaries of the

proposed viticultural area. The resultant

soils are primarily silty to sandy

topsoils with scattered small to

moderate rounded stones. This is

typical of post glacial soils in lowland

areas. Areas outside the proposed

viticultural area to the west, south and

east, were not covered by ice during the

Vashon glaciation. Consequently, soils

in surrounding areas have entirely

different origins and genesis. The

primary impact on viticultural

conditions by the glaciation of the

proposed Puget Sound viticultural area

was the development of a semipermeable cemented subsoil at depths

generally from one to ten feet. This

subsoil was created by the pressure of

one to three thousand feet of overlying

ice. The subsoil acts as a storage vehicle

for winter rains and allows deep rooted

vines to survive the late-summer soil

water deficit without irrigation. The

surrounding areas which were not

glaciated do not share this comparative

advantage. The semi-permeable

cemented subsoil is the most significant

soil factor relative to viticulture in the

area.

Topography and Geographical Features

The Puget Sound basin is a large

lowland surrounding bodies of salt

water called in government reports

‘‘Puget Sound’’ or ‘‘Puget Sound and

Adjacent Waters.’’ These waters

comprise Puget Sound, a long, wide

ocean inlet. The basin is cut by many

rivers flowing into the Sound. Low

rolling hills formed by the deposit and

erosion of advancing and retreating

glaciers are cut by ravines and stream

channels. The dominating natural

features are the sound itself and the

surrounding mountains. The Olympic

mountain range forms the western

boundary of the Puget Sound basin.

These mountains intercept moist

maritime Pacific air and account for the

relatively low annual precipitation. The

Cascade mountain range forms the

eastern boundary of the Puget Sound

basin. These mountains protect the

basin from the extremely cold winters

and hot summers of eastern

Washington. Elevations in the basin are

primarily between sea-level and 1,000

feet. Isolated hills of up to 4,000 feet

occur primarily in the northeast but

none of the existing vineyards is above

600 feet in elevation.

Viticulture

The petitioners state that neither

vinifera nor labrusca vines are native to

the area; however, they are now grown

throughout the basin. In 1872, Lambert

Evans established a vineyard on Stretch

Island in southern Puget Sound. He sold

the fruit in Seattle. In the 1890’s a

viticulturalist from the east coast named

Adam Eckert brought new grape

varieties and planted more vineyards on

the island. The first bonded winery in

Washington State was established there

in 1933 by Charles Somers. Known as

the St. Charles Winery, it reached a

capacity of 100,000 gallons. Viticulture

spread throughout the Puget Sound

basin as evidenced by the annual

reports of the Washington State

Department of Agriculture. These
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27063

primarily labrusca plantings were

gradually supplanted in most of the

basin by vinifera plantings from the

1950’s to the present. The Washington

State Department of Agriculture report

entitled, ‘‘Washington Agriculture,’’

1960, reported 2 small areas of grape

cultivation outside of Yakima Valley;

one of them being ‘‘in western

Washington in Kitsap county. There

along the shores of Puget Sound, grapes

have grown satisfactorily for many

years.’’ The 1993 publication, ‘‘Touring

the Washington Wine Country,’’ which

is published by the Washington Wine

Commission states that, ‘‘Small

vineyards flourish on Puget Sound’s

islands . . .’’ There are now over 50

acres of vineyards in the basin and 25

bonded wineries.

Proposed Boundaries

The boundaries of the proposed Puget

Sound viticultural area may be found on

four 1:250,000 scale U.S.G.S. maps

titled: Hoquiam, Washington (1974);

Seattle, Washington (1974); Wenatchee,

Washington (1971); Victoria, B.C., Can.,

Wash., U.S. (1974); one 1:25,000 scale

map titled: Auburn, Washington (1983);

and three 1:24,000 scale maps titled:

Buckley, Washington (1993);

Cumberland, Washington (1993); and

Enumclaw, Washington (1993).

Public Participation—Written

Comments

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 by

facsimile transmission to (202) 927–

8602, provided the comments: (1) are

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

contain a written signature, and (4) are

three pages or less in length. This

limitation is necessary to assure

reasonable access to the equipment.

Comments sent by FAX in excess of

three pages will not be accepted.

Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be

acknowledged. Facsimile transmitted

comments will be treated as originals.

Any person who desires an

opportunity to comment orally at a

public hearing on the proposed

regulation should submit his or her

request, in writing, to the Director

within the 45-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 1980, Pub. L. 96–511,

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its

implementing regulations, 5 C.F.R. 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

establishment of a viticultural area is

neither an endorsement nor 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 region.

Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required because the

proposal, if promulgated as a final rule,

is not expected (1) to have significant

secondary, or incidental effects on a

substantial number of small entities; or

(2) to impose, or otherwise cause a

significant increase in the reporting,

recordkeeping, or other compliance

burdens on a substantial number of

small entities.

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 David W. Brokaw, Wine, Beer, and

Spirits Regulations Branch, 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.

Subpart C—Approved American

Viticultural Areas

Par. 2. Subpart C is amended by

adding § 9.151 to read as follows:

§ 9.151 Puget Sound.

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural

area described in this section is ‘‘Puget

Sound.’’

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate

maps for determining the boundary of

the Puget Sound viticultural area are

four 1:250,000 scale U.S.G.S.

topographical maps, one 1:25,000 scale

topographic map, and three 1:24,000

scale topographic maps. They are titled:

(1) Hoquiam, Washington, 1958

revised 1974 (1:250,000).

(2) Seattle, Washington, 1958 revised

1974 (1:250,000).

(3) Wenatchee, Washington, 1957

revised 1971 (1:250,000).

(4) Victoria, B.C., Can., Wash., U.S.,

1957 revised 1974 (1:250,000).

(5) Auburn, Washington, 1983

(1:25,000).

(6) Buckley, Washington, 1993

(1:24,000).

(7) Cumberland, Washington, 1993

(1:24,000).

(8) Enumclaw, Washington, 1993

(1:24,000).

(c) Boundary. The Puget Sound

viticultural area is located in the State

of Washington. The boundaries of the

Puget Sound viticultural area, using

landmarks and points of reference found

on appropriate U.S.G.S. maps, follow.

(1) Beginning where the Whatcom

county line comes closest to an

unnamed secondary road (referred to in

the petition as Silver Lake Road) on the

U.S.G.S. map ‘‘Victoria,’’ T41N/R6E;

(2) Then south along Silver Lake Road

approximately 5.5 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 542,

T39N/R5E;

(3) Then west and then southwest

along State Highway 542 approximately

11 miles to its intersection with State

Highway 9, T38N/R5E;
27064 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(4) Then south along State Highway 9

approximately 44 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Burn Road) at the town of

Arlington, T31N/R5E;

(5) Then south, southeast along Burn

Road approximately 11 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 92,

T30N/R6E;

(6) Then south along State Highway

92 approximately 3 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed light duty

road (referred to in the petition as

Machias Hartford Road), T29N/R6E;

(7) Then south along Machias

Hartford Road approximately 4 miles to

its intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Lake Roesiger Road), on the

U.S.G.S. map ‘‘Wenatchee,’’ T29N/R7E;

(8) Then east along Lake Roesiger

Road approximately 3.5 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Woods Creek Road), T29N/

R7E;

(9) Then south along Woods Creek

Road approximately 10.5 miles to its

intersection with U.S. Highway 2 in the

town of Monroe, T27N/R7E;

(10) Then west along U.S. Highway 2

approximately 1⁄2 mile to its intersection

with State Highway 203, T27N/R6E;

(11) Then south along State Highway

203 approximately 24 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Preston-Fall City Road), at

the town of Fall City, T24N/R7E;

(12) Then southwest along PrestonFall City Road approximately 4 miles to

its intersection with Interstate Highway

90 at the town of Preston, T24N/R7E;

(13) Then east along Interstate

Highway 90 approximately 3 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 18,

T23N/R7E;

(14) Then southwest along State

Highway 18 approximately 7 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as 276th Avenue SE), T23N/

R6E;

(15) Then south along 276th Avenue

SE approximately 5 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 516 at

the town of Georgetown, T22N/R6E;

(16) Then west along State Highway

516 approximately 2 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 169 at

the town of Summit on the U.S.G.S.

map, ‘‘Seattle,’’ (shown in greater detail

on the U.S.G.S. map, ‘‘Auburn’’), T22N/

R6E;

(17) Then south along State Highway

169 approximately 11.5 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 410 at

the town of Enumclaw on the U.S.G.S.

map, ‘‘Wenatchee,’’ (shown in greater

detail on the U.S.G.S. map,

‘‘Enumclaw’’), T20N/R6E;

(18) Then southwest approximately 5

miles along State Highway 410 until its

intersection with State Highway 165 on

the U.S.G.S. map, ‘‘Seattle,’’ (shown in

greater detail on the U.S.G.S. map,

‘‘Buckley’’), T19N/R6E;

(19) Then southwest on State

Highway 165 until its intersection with

State Highway 162 at the town of

Cascade Junction on the U.S.G.S. map,

‘‘Seattle’’ (shown in greater detail on the

U.S.G.S. Map, ‘‘Buckley’’), T19N/R6E;

(20) Then southwest along State

Highway 162 approximately 8 miles to

its intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Orville Road E.), T19N/R5E;

(21) Then south along Orville Road E.,

approximately 8 miles to its intersection

with the CMSTP&P railroad at the town

of Kapowsin, on the U.S.G.S. map,

‘‘Hoquiam,’’ T17N/R5E;

(22) Then south along the CMSTP&P

railroad approximately 17 miles to

where it crosses the Pierce County line

at the town of Elbe, T15N/R5E;

(23) Then west along the Pierce

County line approximately 1 mile to the

eastern tip of Thurston County, T15N/

R5E;

(24) Then west along the Thurston

County line approximately 38 miles to

where it crosses Interstate Highway 5,

T15N/R2W;

(25) Then north along Interstate

Highway 5 approximately 18 miles to its

intersection with U.S. Highway 101 at

the town of Tumwater on the U.S.G.S.

map ‘‘Seattle,’’ T18N/R2W;

(26) Then northwest along U.S.

Highway 101 approximately 18 miles to

its intersection with State Highway 3 at

the town of Shelton, T20N/R3W;

(27) Then northeast along State

Highway 3 approximately 24 miles to

where it crosses the Kitsap County line,

T23N/R1W;

(28) Then north along the Kitsap

County line approximately 3 miles to

the point where it turns west, T23N/

R1W;

(29) Then west along the Kitsap

County line approximately 11 miles to

the point where it turns north, T23N/

R3W;

(30) Then continuing west across

Hood Canal approximately 1 mile to

join with U.S. Highway 101 just south

of the mouth of an unnamed creek

(referred to in the petition as Jorsted

Creek), T23N/R3W;

(31) Then north along U.S. Highway

101 approximately 40 miles to the point

where it turns west at the town of

Gardiner on the U.S.G.S. map

‘‘Victoria,’’ T30N/R2W;

(32) Then west along U.S. Highway

101 approximately 32 miles to where it

crosses the Elwha River, T30N/R7W;

(33) Then north along the Elwha River

approximately 6 miles to its mouth,

T31N/R7W;

(34) Then continuing north across the

Strait of Juan de Fuca approximately 5

miles to the Clallam County line, T32N/

R7W;

(35) Then northeast along the Clallam

County line approximately 14 miles to

the southwestern tip of San Juan

County, T32N/R4W;

(36) Then northeast along the San

Juan County line approximately 51

miles to the northern tip of San Juan

County, T38N/R3W;

(37) Then northwest along the

Whatcom County line approximately 19

miles to the western tip of Whatcom

County, T41N/R5W;

(38) Then east along the Whatcom

County line approximately 58 miles to

the beginning.

Signed: May 3, 1995.

Daniel R. Black,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 95–12410 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[IN001; FRL–5209–6]

Clean Air Act Proposed Interim

Approval of Operating Permits

Program; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim

approval of the operating permits

program submitted by Indiana for the

purpose of complying with Federal

requirements which mandate that States

develop, and submit to EPA, programs

for issuing operating permits to all

major stationary sources, and to certain

other sources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

June 21, 1995. Comments should be

addressed to the contact indicated

below.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the

proposed interim approval are available

for inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: EPA

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

AR–18J, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please