29476 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

publications issued by the Railroad

Retirement Board. The merchandise also

bears the seal of the Railroad Retirement

Board.

§ 396.5 Penalty for misuse of the seal.

Unauthorized use of the seal of the

Railroad Retirement Board may result in

criminal prosecution under applicable

law.

Dated: May 22, 2001.

By Authority of the Board.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 01–13654 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[T.D. ATF 454; Ref: Notice No. 866]

RIN 1512–AA07

Establishment of Santa Rita Hills

Viticultural Area (98R–129 P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Department of the

Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a

viticultural area located in Santa

Barbara County, California, to be known

as ‘‘Santa Rita Hills.’’ The proposed area

occupies more than 48 square miles.

This action is being taken as a result of

a petition from viticulturists and

vintners of the proposed area under the

direction of J. Richard Sanford (Sanford

Winery), Bryan Babcock (Babcock

Vineyards and Winery), and Wesley D.

Hagen (Vineyard Manager of Clos Pepe

Vineyards).

The establishment of viticultural areas

and the subsequent use of viticultural

area names as appellations of origin in

wine labeling and advertising allow

wineries to designate the specific areas

where the grapes used to make the wine

are grown and enable consumers to

better identify the wines they purchase.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 30, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joyce A. Drake, ATF Specialist,

Regulations Division, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20091–0221 (202)-927–

8210.

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 defined viticultural

areas. The regulations also 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, providing for the listing of

approved American viticultural areas.

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

defines an American Viticultural Area

(AVA) as a delimited grape-growing

region distinguishable by geographical

features, the boundaries of which have

been recognized and defined in subpart

C of part 9. Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines

the procedure for proposing an AVA.

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 features (climate, soil,

elevation, physical features, etc.) which

distinguish the viticultural features of

the proposed area from surrounding

areas;

(d) A description of the specific

boundaries of the viticultural area,

based on features which can be found

on United States Geological Survey

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

scale; and

(e) A copy (or copies) of the

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

boundaries prominently marked.

Petition

ATF received a petition under the

direction of J. Richard Sanford (Sanford

Winery) which was written by Wesley

D. Hagen (Vineyard Manager of Clos

Pepe Vineyards), on behalf of

viticulturists and vintners working in

Santa Barbara County, California. The

petition, which was signed by 22

people, 14 of whom are local wine grape

growers, proposed to establish a

viticultural area surrounded by but

separate from the Santa Ynez Valley

AVA of California to be known as

‘‘Santa Rita Hills.’’ The boundary of the

viticultural area encloses an estimated

area slightly greater than forty-eight (48)

square miles and contains

approximately 500 acres of planted

varietal winegrapes. Currently two (2)

wineries and seventeen (17) vineyards

exist within the Santa Rita Hills area.

Two additional vineyards are being

developed.

Comments

On September 11, 1998, ATF

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking, Notice 866, in the Federal

Register, soliciting comments on the

proposed vitucultural area.

Analysis of Comments

ATF received a total of 35 comments

concerning this petition. Eleven letters

of support from various persons familiar

with the proposed AVA were submitted

with the petition. These letters of

support included industry ‘‘experts,’’

vintners, consultants, local politicians

(such as the Chair for the Santa Barbara

County Board of Supervisors and the

Mayor of the city of Lompoc), and

viticulturists. Seven of the eleven

comments were from persons who had

also signed the petition. All 11

comments attested to the uniqueness of

the area, its distinctive characteristics

(geological, geographic, and climatic)

and the local recognition of the area by

the proposed name.

ATF received 24 comments that

opposed the establishment of the Santa

Rita Hills AVA. Most of these

commenters were foreign/international

importers and distributors. The

opposition in each response revolved

around the similarity of the proposed

name to an already established ‘‘Santa

Rita’’ brand of wine from Chile.

All Commenters Opposing the

Establishment of the ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’

Viticultural Area Presented the

Following To Support Their Contention

That the Petition To Establish the Santa

Rita Hills Viticultural Area Should Be

Denied

There is already a well known and

established ‘‘Santa Rita’’ vineyard and

winery located in Chile, Vina Santa

Rita, which was founded in 1880 and is

known worldwide. Vina Santa Rita is a

public company whose shares are

traded on the Santiago Stock Exchange.

This ‘‘Santa Rita’’ winery is the second

largest winery in Chile, with consumer

brand recognition in the Chilean wine

industry. Large sums of money have

been invested by both the ‘‘Santa Rita’’

winery in Chile and various importers

and distributors worldwide to advertise

and promote the ‘‘Santa Rita’’ (Chile)

brand.

The opposing commenters contend

that the establishment of a ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ viticultural area would confuse

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29477

wine consumers who already associate

the name ‘‘Santa Rita’’ with the Chilean

wine. One commenter stated that, since

the names are phonetically identical

(sans the last word ‘‘Hills’’), a product

labeled of a ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’

appellation may be seen as a variety of

the Chilean ‘‘Santa Rita’’ as the Chilean

‘‘Santa Rita’’ is surrounded by hills and

mountains. Also, since both names

would refer to the same product (wine),

the likelihood of consumer confusion

would increase.

The opponents believe Chile’s ‘‘Santa

Rita’’ owns a U.S. trademark and,

therefore, the establishment of the

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ viticultural area

would result in an infringement of the

‘‘Santa Rita’’ registered mark under the

Lanham Act.

The opponents’ view is that the

establishment of a ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’

AVA would violate the U.S. obligations

under the Paris Convention and General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT), including Trade-Related

Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

(TRIPS).

Arguments Supporting the

Establishment of the ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’

Viticultural Area

The name ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the specified area through maps, land

records, reports, and various texts.

These records show the Santa Rita area

dating back to 1845 (35 years prior to

the founding of the Santa Rita winery in

Chile). The Californian Santa Rita title

was accredited and confirmed in the

U.S. Patent Book ‘‘A’’ on June 25, 1875.

The ‘‘Santa Rita’’ name is also used,

and ATF approved, as a brand name on

other wines not from Chile. According

to documents found in ATF’s label files,

the ‘‘Santa Rita’’ name has been used on

wines from Italy and the United States.

This includes the use of the name

‘‘Santa Rita’’ on wines from Longoria, a

winery in the Santa Rita Hills area

whose proprietor, Richard Longoria,

submitted a letter of support as well.

Wines from the ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’

area have been recognized viticulturally

and enologically as distinct by worldrenowned writers and mentioned as

such in wine literature. Supporting

documentation shows that the area has

a cool climate and soils more conducive

to growing ‘‘Region One’’ cool-climate

grape varietals whereas the surrounding

Santa Ynez Valley AVA provides a

warmer climate and soils for ‘‘Region

Two’’ grape growing varietals. This

distinction results in different wine

varietals from each region.

The region of Santa Rita Hills is

recognized viticulturally and

enologically for producing world class

cool-climate grapes such as Pinot Noir

and Chardonnay, because of the unique

climatic and geographical influences of

the area.

Discussion

Evidence of Name

ATF is satisfied that the petitioner

provided evidence that the name ‘‘Santa

Rita Hills’’ is locally known as referring

to the area specified in the petition. In

the exhibits and maps furnished with

the petition, there are numerous

references to both ‘‘Santa Rita’’ and

‘‘Santa Rita Hills.’’

Evidence submitted with the petition

relating to name includes:

(a) The U.S.G.S. Lompoc, Lompoc

Hills, Los Alamos, and Santa Rosa

Quadrangle maps used to show the

boundaries of the proposed area use the

name ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ to identify the

area.

(b) The U.S.G.S. Water-Resources

Investigations Report 970–4056

(Evaluation of Ground Water Flow and

Solute Transport in the Lompoc Area,

Santa Barbara County, California)

discusses the ‘‘Santa Rita Upland

Basin.’’ The report indicates that ‘‘Santa

Rita’’ is a recognized geological,

geographical, and hydrological

appellation in Santa Barbara County,

California.

(c) An excerpt, ‘‘From the Missions to

Prohibition,’’ in the publication Aged in

Oak: The Story of the Santa Barbara

County Wine Industry (1998), provided

by the petitioner shows the vineyards

and wineries in Santa Barbara County

prior to 1900 include the name ‘‘Santa

Rita.’’

(d) The text provided by the petitioner

from History of Santa Barbara County

(1939) states, ‘‘Following the

secularization of the Mission La

Purisma, the rest of the valley was

broken up into seven great ranchos

granted to private owners. They were

Santa Rosa, Santa Rita, Salsipuedes, La

Purisima, Mission Vieja, Lompoc and a

portion of the Jesus Maria.’’ (Italics

added for emphasis.)

The Land Records of Santa Barbara

County from the U.S.G.S. furnished by

the petitioner show the Santa Rita area

dating back to 1845. According to this

information, Santa Rita was established

as a recognized political and

geographical region when a land grant

for Santa Rita was made to Jose Ramon

Malo from Spanish governor Pio Pico on

April 12, 1845. The title was accredited

to Jose Ramon Malo on June 25, 1875 by

President Ulysses S. Grant as confirmed

in the U.S. Patent Book A. (Pertinent

pages are shown as exhibits to the

petition.) The patent issued included

13,316 acres within the boundary of the

Santa Rita Land Grant.

The names ‘‘Santa Rita’’ and ‘‘Santa

Rita Hills’’ are both well documented in

the petition and are both supported by

written comments evidencing local

recognition of the name as referring to

the area specified in the petition. ATF

finds that the name ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’

is appropriate to identify the viticultural

area based upon evidence submitted

with the petition, including

commenters’ support of the name

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ to describe the

viticultural area and U.S.G.S maps

identifying the area as ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’.

As to potential confusion between a

product labeled with a ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ AVA and wines labeled with the

name ‘‘Santa Rita,’’ a similar issue was

raised when ATF was presented with a

petition to establish a ‘‘Madera’’ AVA

back in 1984. Some commenters to the

petition, including the Portuguese

Embassy, objected to the appellation of

‘‘Madera’’ due to possible confusion

with the Portuguese island of Madeira

which had produced world famous

wine for over 500 years. The

commenters were concerned that the

use of the appellation’’Madera’’ would

cause possible confusion with Madeira

wine (a class and type of dessert wine).

ATF had previously recognized Madeira

as a class and type of wine and as a

semi-generic wine designation with

geographical significance. When used as

a class and type designation, Madeira

had to be qualified with an appellation

of origin if the wine was not from the

island of Madeira.

Although ATF recognized the

similarity in the names ‘‘Madera’’ and

‘‘Madeira,’’ ATF ruled in favor of the

petitioner. All evidence showed that the

proposed AVA was locally and

nationally known as ‘‘Madera’’ thus

meeting the requirement in 27 CFR

4.25a(e)(2)(I). In addition, ATF did not

see any consumer confusion between

‘‘Madera’’ and ‘‘Madeira’’ wine when

‘‘Madera’’ was used as an appellation of

origin on domestic wines.

In the present case, while ATF also

recognizes the similarity between the

name of the viticultural area ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ and the name ‘‘Santa Rita’’ in

Chile, ATF is satisfied that the petition

meets all of the requirements of 27 CFR

4.25a. Evidence submitted with the

petition amply supports the local

recognition of the name ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills.’’ In addition, ATF does not

foresee a likelihood of consumer

confusion between the ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ AVA and other geographic areas

of the same name. Numerous labels

29478 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

bearing the name ‘‘Santa Rita’’ in one

form or another have already been

approved (from the United States, Chile,

and Italy) dating from 1980, and ATF is

aware of no reported consumer

confusion as to the respective products’

origins.

As to objections to the use of the

name ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ based upon

potential violations of the Lanham Act

and insofar as it implements U.S.

obligations on trademarks under the

Paris Convention, GATT, and TRIPS,

these issues are matters of private

dispute that do not restrict ATF’s

authority to establish a viticultural area

under the Federal Alcohol

Administration Act (‘‘FAA Act’’), 27

U.S.C. 205(e).

Lanham Act

It is ATF’s position that the rights

granted by registered trademarks under

the Lanham Act do not foreclose the

right to use the same or similar names

on an alcohol beverage label under the

FAA Act. In determining whether to

establish a viticultural area of a

particular name that is identical or

similar to a trademarked name, ATF

considers whether the criteria set forth

in section 4.25a are met, whether the

rulemaking record supports the use of

the name for the designated area, and

whether the use of such name would be

deceptive or likely to create a

misleading impression as to the

product’s origin. The existence of a

trademark is one factor in determining

whether the use of a particular name is

misleading to consumers.

In the case of the name ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills,’’ ATF finds that Federal

registration of the term ‘‘Santa Rita’’

under the Lanham Act does not limit

ATF’s authority to establish a

viticultural area known as ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills.’’ First, as previously indicated,

the petition satisfies the requirements of

27 CFR 4.25a. Second, no evidence in

the rulemaking record or otherwise

based on our experience in

administering and enforcing the use of

viticultural area designations, indicates

that the name ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ would

be misleading under the standard of the

Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 27

U.S.C. 205(e)(1). As previously stated,

numerous labels bearing the name

‘‘Santa Rita’’ in one form or another

have already been approved (from the

United States, Chile, and Italy) and

there has been no evidence or other

indication that establishes that

consumers are confused as to the

respective products’ origins.

The fact that imported products are

required to state the words ‘‘Imported

by’’ followed by the name and address

of the party responsible for importation

would, in the case of a product with a

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ appellation, signal to

consumers that the product is

domestically produced rather than

Chilean in origin. The fact imported

products are also required by Customs

regulations to state the words ‘‘Product

of l’’ followed by the country of origin,

further identifies the origin of imported

products to consumers, as distinct from

domestic products. Likewise, the fact

that domestic products are required to

indicate the name and address of the

bottler or packer, minimizes the

likelihood of confusion between a

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ wine and a product

of Santa Rita in Chile or any other place.

Finally, under trademark law, the

mere existence of a trademark does not

necessarily preclude others from

indicating the geographic origin of their

products where the name is used in a

descriptive sense rather than a

trademark sense. In the case of a ‘‘Santa

Rita Hills’’ viticultural area, the name

would be used on a label in a

descriptive sense, to describe the

product’s appellation under the FAA

Act.

ATF has determined that, under the

‘‘misleading’’ standard of the FAA Act,

the use of the name ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’

for this viticultural area is not likely to

mislead the consumer. However, to the

extent that a trademark holder believes

that the depiction of a viticultural area

name that contains all or part of a

trademark results in an infringement,

then that holder may pursue an

infringement action to prevent and

restrain the use of that viticultural area

name by a winery on a wine label. The

holder of the trademark would have to

establish the likelihood of confusion

based on the standard in the Lanham

Act and the circumstances surrounding

the presentation of the viticultural area

name on the label. In cases where the

trademark holder succeeds in

establishing an infringement, then the

ability to enjoin the continued use of

that name by the winery ensures that

the first in time right and exclusivity of

rights of the trademark holder are

protected. It must be noted that, in

approving the name Santa Rita Hills for

this viticultural area, ATF is not making

any determination on whether the use of

this name constitutes an infringement

under the Lanham Act.

It should be emphasized that the

Santa Rita winery in Chile will not

necessarily be precluded from using the

designation ‘‘Santa Rita’’ as a brand

name on wine labels following issuance

of this regulation. Pursuant to 27 CFR

4.39(i), a brand name of geographical

significance may be used if it previously

appeared on labels approved prior to

July 7, 1986, and if the wine is also

labeled with an appellation of origin (or

some other statement which the Director

finds to be sufficient to dispel the brand

name’s geographic connotation). Thus,

the name ‘‘Santa Rita’’ may be used as

a brand name where the wine meets the

appellation requirements of the

regulations and is labeled in a way that

satisfies the regulatory requirements. As

always, all labels are reviewed on a

case-by-case basis to determine whether

any particular label is likely to mislead

consumers, including as to the origin of

the product.

Finally, the comments raise questions

about the application of the Paris

Convention and the Agreement on

Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property. Trademark rights mandated by

these international obligations are

implemented under the Lanham Act.

Accordingly, any private rights in this

area are available for pursuit as

provided for by that Act.

In consideration of the above, ATF is

adopting the name ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ in

this final rule. ATF finds that the name

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ is appropriate to

identify the viticultural area based upon

all of the evidence in the petition and

comments.

Evidence of Boundaries

The ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ AVA is located

in Northern Santa Barbara County,

California, east of Lompoc (U.S.

Highway 1) and west of Buellton (U.S.

Highway 101). Precise boundaries can

be found on the five (5) U.S.G.S.

Quadrangle maps (7.5 minute series

originally dated 1959) submitted with

the petition. On these maps, the Santa

Rita Hills are the dominant central

features of the area with its transverse

(east/west) maritime throat stretching

from Lompoc to a few miles west of the

Buellton Flats. The Santa Rosa Hills to

the south and the Purisima Hills to the

north isolate the proposed area

geographically and climatically.

Again, the U.S.G.S. Water-Resources

Investigations Report 970–4056

describes the Santa Rita Upland Basin

as being ‘‘in hydrologic continuity with

the Lompoc Plain, Lompoc Upland and

Buellton Upland basins, but separated

from the Santa Ynez River alluvium by

non-water-bearing rocks.’’ It goes on to

state, ‘‘[a]n ongoing U.S.G.S. study treats

the Santa Rita Valley as a separate unit

***’’ and ‘‘* * * the eastern surface

drainage divide between Santa Rita and

Lompoc basins was used as a groundwater divide by the U.S.G.S.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29479

Climate

The climatic features of the

viticultural area and thus the varietals

grown therein, set it apart from the

Santa Ynez Valley AVA, which borders

the viticultural area. The Santa Ynez

Valley area east of U.S. Highway 101 is

characterized by higher temperatures

than the ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ AVA to the

west, which has a cool climate and is

thus more conducive to growing

‘‘Region One’’ cool-climate winegrape

varietals. By contrast, the eastern area of

the Santa Ynez Valley, a ‘‘Region Two’’

growing area, provides a warmer climate

and is well known for the production of

varietal winegrapes such as Cabernet

Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Merlot,

Sauvignon Blanc, Mourvedre, and other

varietals that require a significantly

higher temperature (degree days) for

adequate ripening. The ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ AVA, to the west of U.S. Highway

101, is better known for varietals such

as Chardonnay and Pinot Noir, which

are the predominant winegrapes there.

In addition, ambient temperature and

evapotranspiration rates during veraison

and ripening are disparate for the two

adjacent viticultural locales. The

average post-veraison ripening

temperature is 14.7° F hotter within the

Santa Ynez Valley AVA than in the

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ AVA to the west.

Similarly, the heating degree day

differential (with the base of 50° F)

between the two areas is 61 heating

degree days, indicating an annual 92

heating degree days in the western

Lompoc boundary and an annual 153

heating degree days in the eastern

Cachuma Lake boundary. These

temperature differences are the result of

a unique set of topographical, geological

and climatic influences, particularly

coastal in origin.

The ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ AVA is

situated within the clearly defined east/

west transverse maritime throat, and

thus is susceptible to the ocean’s

cooling influence. This enables diurnal

ocean breezes direct access to the

coastal valleys between the Purisima

Hills and the Santa Rosa Hills, which

house the AVA. The coastal influence is

not nearly as pronounced in the Santa

Ynez Valley east of U.S. Highway 101

and the Buellton Flats. In addition, the

proximity of the AVA to the Pacific

Ocean fills the hills and valleys of the

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ AVA in the late night

and early morning hours with coastal

fog. This intensifies the cool-climate

influence on varietal winegrape

production between the geological

boundaries of the Purisima Hills and the

Santa Rosa Hills.

Soil

The soils of the Santa Rita Hills are

broken down from an array of geological

parent material, with the most common

types being loams, sandy loams, silt

loams, and clay loams. These soils are

based on large percentages of dune

sand, marine deposits, recent alluvium,

river wash, and terrace deposits, which

are shown on maps provided in the

exhibits of the petition. Soil samples

collected from selected sites within the

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ AVA and the adjacent

Santa Ynez Valley AVA show a distinct

difference resulting from a high

percentage of alluvial and marine sand

within the Santa Rita Hills area. While

the soil samples from the ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ AVA show higher percentages of

sand, silt and sandy loams, the soil

samples from the eastern Santa Ynez

Valley show a higher percentage of

gravelly and clay loams. Also, soil

analysis test results from several

vineyards in the proposed ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ AVA conducted by various labs

in the area support the distinct soil data

claims.

Topography

The topography of the ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ AVA is distinct and isolated from

the rest of the Pacific Coast, the Central

Coast, and the Santa Ynez Valley east of

U.S. Highway 101 and the Buellton

Flats. The AVA is demarcated by the

east-west ranges of the Purisma Hills on

the north and the Santa Rosa Hills on

the south, framing Santa Rita Hills.

When surveying the land within Santa

Rita Hills to determine what locales

would be the outer ‘‘edges,’’ the

petitioner states the following was taken

into account: viticultural viability

(primarily hillside and alluvial basin

plantings) and the coastal influence

suitable for cool-climate still winegrape

production. The actual topography of

the ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ AVA is an oakstudded, hill-laden maritime throat that

runs east to west, a few miles east of

Lompoc to a few miles west of Buellton

Flats. The coastal influence enters from

the west, through Lompoc, and abruptly

loses its influence at the eastern

boundary, as demarcated on the

enclosed U.S.G.S. maps. Elevations

within the proposed boundary range

from near sea-level to ridge-line 1800

feet above sea level.

ATF believes that the above

statements relating to climate, soil, and

topography are supported by the

petition and distinguish the

geographical features of the viticultural

area from surrounding areas.

Accordingly, ATF is establishing the

‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’ AVA as described

below.

Boundary

The boundary of the ‘‘Santa Rita

Hills’’ AVA may be found on the five (5)

1:24:000 scale U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 7.5–

Minute Series maps included with the

petition. The boundary is described in

§ 9.162.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of the Paperwork

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

3507(j)) and its implementing

regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not

apply to this Treasury Decision because

no requirement to collect information is

imposed.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this

regulation will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Any benefit

derived from the use of a viticultural

area name is the result of the

proprietor’s own efforts and consumer

acceptance of wines from a particular

area. No new requirements are imposed.

Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this

regulation is not a significant regulatory

action as defined in Executive Order

12866. Accordingly, this regulation is

not subject to the analysis required by

this Executive Order.

Drafting Information

The 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

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. Subpart C is amended by

adding § 9.162 to read as follows:

* * * * *

29480 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart C—Approved American

Viticultural Areas

§ 9.162 Santa Rita Hills.

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural

area described in this section is ‘‘Santa

Rita Hills.’’

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate

maps for determining the boundary of

the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area are

five (5) U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 7.5 Minute

Series maps titled:

(1) ‘‘Lompoc, Calif.,’’ edition of 1959

(photorevised in 1982).

(2) ‘‘Lompoc Hills, Calif.,’’ edition of

1959 (photoinspected 1971).

(3) ‘‘Los Alamos, Calif.,’’ edition of

1959.

(4) ‘‘Santa Rosa Hills, Calif.,’’ edition

of 1959 (photoinspected 1978).

(5) ‘‘Solvang, Calif.,’’ edition of 1959

(photorevised 1982).

(c) Boundary. The ‘‘Santa Rita Hills’’

viticultural area is located within Santa

Barbara County, California. The

boundary is as follows:

(1) The beginning point is found on

the Solvang, California U.S.G.S.

Quadrangle map at an unnamed hilltop,

elevation 1600 feet, in section 27, T.6N,

R. 32W, on the Solvang, Calif.,

Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map.

(2) Then proceed north and slightly

west 2.3 miles to an unnamed hilltop

elevation 1174 feet, Section 15, T.6N., R.

32W.

(3) Proceed west and slightly north

1.85 miles to an unnamed hilltop

elevation 899 feet within the heart of the

Santa Rosa Land Grant, T.7N., R. 32W,

on the Santa Rosa Hills, Calif.,

Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map.

(4) Proceed north approximately 2

miles to an unnamed hilltop elevation

1063 feet within the northeastern part of

the Santa Rosa Land Grant, T.7N, R.

32W, on the Los Alamos, Calif.,

Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map.

(5) Proceed northwest 1.1 miles to an

unnamed hilltop elevation 961 feet.

Section 29, T.7N., R. 32W.

(6) Proceed north and slightly east 1.1

miles to an unnamed elevation 1443

feet. Section 20, T. 7N., R. 32W.

(7) Proceed west 1.4 miles to an

unnamed hilltop elevation 1479 feet.

Section 24, T.7N., R. 33W.

(8) Proceed north 1.2 miles to an

unnamed hilltop elevation 1705 feet.

Section 13, T.7N., R. 33W.

(9) Proceed northwest approximately

2 miles to an unnamed hilltop elevation

1543. Section 10, T.7N., R. 33W.

(10) Proceed west and slightly south

1.6 miles to an unnamed hilltop

elevation 935 feet within the northern

section of the Santa Rosa Land Grant.

T.7N., R. 33W.

(11) Proceed south by southwest 1.5

miles to an unnamed hilltop elevation

605 feet in the northern section of the

Santa Rosa Land Grant. T.7N., R. 33W.

(12) Proceed west by southwest

approximately 2 miles to the point

where California Highway 246 intersects

with the 200-foot elevation contour line

comprising the western border of the

Santa Rita Hills, within the Santa Rosa

Land Grant. T.7N., R. 34W, on the

Lompoc, Calif., Quadrangle U.S.G.S.

map.

(13) Proceed following the 200 foot

elevation contour line south along the

western border of the Santa Rita Hills to

the extreme southern tip of the 200 foot

elevation contour that is .6 miles due

west of an unnamed hilltop 361 feet in

elevation in the Canada de Salispuedes

Land Grant. T.6N., R. 34W.

(14) Proceed southeast 2.35 miles to

an unnamed hilltop elevation 1070 feet.

Section 18, T.6N., R. 33W, on the

Lompoc Hills, Calif., Quadrangle

U.S.G.S. map.

(15) Proceed east and slightly south

1.95 miles to an unnamed hilltop

elevation 921 feet. Section 16, T.6N., R.

33W, on the Santa Rosa Hills, Calif.,

Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map.

(16) Proceed east by southeast 1.35

miles to an unnamed hilltop elevation

1307 feet at intersection between

Sections 22 and 23. T.6N., R. 33W.

(17) Proceed east 2.35 miles to an

unnamed hilltop elevation 1507 feet in

the southern area of the Santa Rosa

Land Grant. T.6N., 32W.

(18) Proceed east by southeast 2.1

miles to an unnamed hilltop elevation

1279 feet in the southern area of the

Santa Rosa Land Grant. T.6N., 32W.

(19) Then proceed east by southeast

1.45 miles to the point of the beginning.

Signed: May 25, 2001.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

Timothy E. Skud,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,

(Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 01–13645 Filed 5–30–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Parts 18, 19 and 24

[T.D. ATF–455; Ref: Notice No. 823]

RIN 1512–AB59

Volatile Fruit-Flavor Concentrate

Shipments and Alternation With Other

Premises (2000R–290P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Department of the

Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule (Treasury decision).

SUMMARY: This final rule specifically

authorizes the transfer of volatile fruitflavor concentrate (VFFC) unfit for

beverage use from one VFFC plant to

another for further processing and

permits facilities to be alternately used

as a VFFC plant, a distilled spirits plant

or a bonded wine cellar. This rule

allows greater flexibility in the

production processes and in the

equipment and facilities of VFFC plants.

DATES: Effective date: May 31, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert P. Ruhf, Regulations Division,

650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20226; (202) 927–8210;

or alctob@atfhq.atf.treas.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Previously, ATF received a request to

vary from the regulations in 27 CFR part

18, Production of Volatile Fruit Flavor

Concentrate. This request was to allow

the transfer of volatile fruit-flavor

concentrate (VFFC) that is unfit for

beverage use for further processing from

one proprietor of a volatile fruit

concentrate plant to another. The

current regulation regarding transfer of

volatile fruit-flavor concentrate (27 CFR

18.54(a)) does not provide for such a

transfer.

Another current regulation (27 CFR

18.51) allows the transfer to a

producer’s premises of ‘‘processing

material’’ that is produced elsewhere

subject to certain restrictions and

recordkeeping requirements. However,

the definition of ‘‘processing material’’

(27 CFR 18.11) does not include

concentrate that is intended for further

processing. Furthermore, the regulation

at 27 CFR 18.56 allows only a VFFC

proprietor to receive shipments of

returned concentrate previously

shipped by such proprietor.

Consequently, ATF proposed to

amend the regulations in 27 CFR 18.56

to allow such transfers subject to the