Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5397

section 26 eastern boundary line, T23N, 

R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then 

(12) Proceed straight west-southwest 

1.9 miles to the 2,183-foot peak in the 

northwest quadrant of section 34, T23N, 

R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then 

(13) Proceed straight south-southeast 

1.2 miles to the 1,953-foot peak in the 

northeast quadrant of section 3, T22N, 

R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then 

(14) Proceed straight southerly 0.9 

mile to the 2,012-foot peak in the 

northeast quadrant of section 10, T22N, 

R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then 

(15) Proceed straight south-southeast 

1.4 miles along Dingman Ridge to the 

2,228-foot peak along the section 14 and 

15 boundary line, T22N, R12W, Covelo 

East Quadrangle; then 

(16) Proceed straight southeast 0.95 

mile to the 2,398-foot peak in the 

northeast quadrant of section 23, T22N, 

R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then 

(17) Proceed straight south-southeast 

1.75 miles to the 2,474-foot elevation 

point along the section 25 and 26 

boundary line, T22N, R12W, Jamison 

Ridge Quadrangle; then 

(18) Proceed straight west-southwest 

0.9 mile to BM 2217 in the southwest 

quadrant of section 26, and continue 

straight westerly 1.5 miles to the 2,230-

foot peak northwest of Iron Spring, in 

the southeast quadrant of section 28, 

T22N, R12W, Jamison Ridge 

Quadrangle; then 

(19) Proceed straight southwest 0.65 

mile to the 2,022-foot peak along the 

unimproved road in section 33, T22N, 

R12W, Jamison Ridge Quadrangle; then 

(20) Proceed straight west-northwest 

1.5 miles to the 1,762-foot peak in the 

northeast quadrant of section 31, and 

continue in the same line of direction 

1.1 miles to the beginning point at the 

intersection of State Highway 162 and 

the section 25 and 36 boundary line, 

T22N, R13W (labeled Inspiration Point), 

on the Dos Rios Quadrangle map.

Signed: January 25, 2005. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–1875 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Notice No. 31; Re: ATF Notice Nos. 960 

and 966; TTB Notice No. 6] 

RIN: 1513–AA39 

Proposed Red Hill Douglas County, OR 

Viticultural Area (2001R–88P)

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau reopens the comment 

period for Notice No. 960, a notice of 

proposed rulemaking published in the 

Federal Register to add ‘‘Red Hill 

(Oregon)’’ as an approved American 

viticultural area. We are re-opening the 

comment period for 30 days to solicit 

comments on a new proposed name, 

‘‘Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon.’’

The petitioner suggested the new name 

because the originally proposed name 

could be confused with similar names of 

other geographical areas and with brand 

names used on wines from those other 

areas.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments to 

any of the following addresses: 

• Chief, Regulations and Procedures 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 31, P.O. 

Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044–

4412. 

• 202–927–8525 (facsimile). 

• nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail). 

• http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/

index.htm. An online comment form is 

posted with this notice on our Web site. 

• http://www.regulations.gov (Federal 

e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions 

for submitting comments). 

You may view copies of this notice, 

the original petition, the appropriate 

maps, and any comments we receive 

about this notice by appointment at the 

TTB Library, 1310 G Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. To make an 

appointment, call (202) 927–2400. You 

may also access copies of this notice 

and comments online at http://

www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Sutton, Regulations and 

Procedures Division, Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 

Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, 

California 94952; telephone (415) 271–

1254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

On October 30, 2002, the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the 

predecessor agency to the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), 

published in the Federal Register as 

Notice No. 960 (67 FR 66079) a notice 

of proposed rulemaking regarding the 

establishment of the Red Hill (Oregon) 

viticultural area. The notice requested 

comments by December 30, 2002, from 

all interested persons. 

Notice No. 960 included a discussion 

of the name evidence for Red Hill. As 

noted in Notice No. 960, the Red Hill 

name has been used in Douglas County, 

Oregon, for over 100 years. Historically, 

the Applegate and the Scott families 

settled at the foot of Red Hill in the mid19th century. By 1879, settlers 

established a school district in the Red 

Hill area, and built a schoolhouse on 

Red Hill Road (identified in the 

southeast corner of the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) Drain, 

Oregon, map in section 26, T23S/R5W. 

The school district operated until 1943 

when it merged with the Pleasant Valley 

District. ‘‘Douglas County Schools, A 

History Outline,’’ by Larry Moulton, 

October 2000, includes a hand-drawn 

map and directions to the ‘‘Red Hill 

School Site.’’ The Red Hill School now 

stands abandoned. 

The USGS Drain, Oregon, map labels 

‘‘Red Hill’’ in sections 35, 26 and 23, 

T23S/R5W. The map also identifies a 

light duty road meandering through the 

region as ‘‘Red Hill Road.’’ Interstate 5 

signage at exit number 150 in northern 

Douglas County, Oregon, includes the 

‘‘Red Hill’’ name and directional 

information to the area. The USGS 

Geographical Names Information 

System identifies ‘‘Red Hill’’ as an area 

in Douglas County, Oregon. Douglas 

County is located in southwest Oregon, 

as noted the Oregon-Washington 

American Automobile Association State 

Series map, published February 2003, 

and on page 92, ‘‘Oregon,’’ of the 

American Map 2002 Road Atlas.

After publication of Notice No. 960, 

TTB twice re-opened the comment 

period for additional public comments 

on the entire petition. Notice No. 966 

(68 FR 2262), published on January 16, 

2003, requested comments by March 17, 

2003. TTB Notice No. 6 (68 FR 20090), 

published on April 24, 2003, requested 

comments by May 27, 2004. 

In response to these notices, TTB 

received a total of 32 comments, with 16 

supporting and 12 opposing the 

petition, 1 requesting an extension of 

the comment period, and 3 requesting a 

public hearing. 

5398 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Supporting commenters focused on 

the distinctive features of the proposed 

area and the locally known Red Hill 

name. Opposing commenters expressed 

concern about the potential name 

confusion with other geographical areas, 

the similarity of the proposed name to 

other wine brand names, and the 

geographical and climatic evidence 

submitted for the proposed area. 

After reviewing the comments, TTB 

suggested that the petitioner provide an 

alternative name for the proposed 

viticultural area because its originally 

proposed name could be confused with 

similar names of other geographical 

areas and with brand names used on 

wines from those other areas. The 

petitioner, after some consideration, 

withdrew the original ‘‘Red Hill 

(Oregon)’’ name and proposed in its 

place the name ‘‘Red Hill Douglas 

County, Oregon.’’ TTB believes the Red 

Hill Douglas County, Oregon name is 

appropriate for the area and will not 

create any confusion with other 

geographical areas or wine brand names 

that contain the words ‘‘Red Hill.’’

Accordingly, we are reopening the 

comment period for Notice No. 960 for 

the specific purpose of eliciting 

comments on the new name for the 

proposed viticultural area. We are also 

modifying the proposed part 9 

regulatory text by adding a second 

sentence to paragraph (a) to define the 

viticultural significance of the new 

proposed name. We explain the impact 

of the adoption of this viticultural area 

name and its relevance to this comment 

solicitation in more detail below. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. If we 

establish this proposed viticultural area, 

its name, ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County, 

Oregon,’’ will be recognized as a name 

of viticultural significance. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using ‘‘Red 

Hill Douglas County, Oregon’’ in a 

brand name, including a trademark, or 

in another label reference as to the 

origin of the wine, will have to ensure 

that the product is eligible to use the 

viticultural area’s name as an 

appellation of origin. On the other hand, 

we do not believe that any single part 

of the proposed viticultural name 

standing alone, such as ‘‘Red Hill,’’

would have viticultural significance if 

the new area is established. 

Accordingly, the proposed part 9 

regulatory text set forth in this 

document specifies only the full ‘‘Red 

Hill Douglas County, Oregon’’ name as 

a term of viticultural significance for 

purposes of part 4 of the TTB 

regulations. 

For a wine to be eligible to use as an 

appellation of origin the name of a 

viticultural area specified in part 9 of 

the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent 

of the grapes used to make the wine 

must have been grown within the area 

represented by that name. If the wine is 

not eligible to use the viticultural area 

name as an appellation of origin and 

that name appears in the brand name, 

then the label is not in compliance and 

the bottler must change the brand name 

and obtain approval of a new label. 

Similarly, if the viticultural area name 

appears in another reference on the 

label in a misleading manner, the bottler 

would have to obtain approval of a new 

label. Accordingly, if a new label or a 

previously approved label uses the 

name ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County, 

Oregon’’ for a wine that does not meet 

the 85 percent standard, the new label 

will not be approved, and the 

previously approved label will be 

subject to revocation, upon the effective 

date of the approval of the Red Hill 

Douglas County, Oregon viticultural 

area. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing a viticultural 

area name that was used as a brand 

name on a label approved before July 7, 

1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. 

Changes to Proposed Boundary 

Description 

In addition to the name change 

discussed above, the proposed 

regulatory text set forth in this notice 

includes a redraft of the boundary 

description for the petitioned-for 

viticultural area. We took this action to 

ensure ease of understanding and to 

describe the boundary line in a 

clockwise rotation. The redrafted 

description makes no change to the 

location of the boundary as set forth in 

Notice No. 960.

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

We invite comments from interested 

members of the public on the new 

proposed ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County, 

Oregon’’ viticultural area name and on 

the redrafted boundary description. 

Please provide any available specific 

information in support of your 

comments. We will not consider 

comments on other aspects of Notice 

No. 960 that are not addresses in this 

notice. 

Because of the potential impact of the 

establishment of the proposed Red Hill 

Douglas County, Oregon viticultural 

area on brand labels that include the 

words ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County, 

Oregon’’ as discussed above under 

‘‘Impact on Current Wine Labels,’’ we 

are particularly interested in comments 

regarding whether there will be a 

conflict between the proposed area 

name and currently used brand names. 

If a commenter believes that a conflict 

will arise, the comment should describe 

the nature of that conflict, including any 

negative economic impact that approval 

of the proposed viticultural area will 

have on an existing viticultural 

enterprise. We are also interested in 

receiving suggestions for ways to avoid 

any conflicts, for example by adopting 

a modified or different name for the 

viticultural area. 

Although TTB believes that only the 

full name ‘‘Red Hill Douglas County, 

Oregon’’ should be considered to have 

viticultural significance upon 

establishment of the proposed new 

viticultural area, we also invite 

comments from those who believe that 

other parts of the name, standing alone, 

would have viticultural significance 

upon establishment of the area. 

Comments in this regard should include 

documentation or other information 

supporting the conclusion that use of a 

part of the name, standing alone, on a 

wine label could cause consumers and 

vintners to attribute to the wine in 

question the quality, reputation, or other 

characteristic of wine made from grapes 

grown in the proposed Red Hill Douglas 

County, Oregon viticultural area. 

Confidentiality 

All submitted material is part of the 

public record and subject to disclosure. 

Do not enclose any material in your 

comments that you consider 

confidential or inappropriate for public 

disclosure. 

Submitting Comments 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this notice. 

All comments must include this notice 

number and your name and mailing 

address. Your comment must be legible 

and written in language acceptable for 

public disclosure. We do not 

acknowledge receipt of comments, and 

we consider all comments as originals. 

You may submit comments in one of 

five ways: 

• Mail: You may send written 

comments to TTB at the address listed 

in the ADDRESSES section. 

• Facsimile: You may submit 

comments by facsimile transmission to 

202–927–8525. Faxed comments must—

(1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper; 

(2) Contain a legible, written 

signature; and

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5399

(3) Be no more than five pages long. 

This limitation assures electronic access 

to our equipment. We will not accept 

faxed comments that exceed five pages. 

• E-mail: You may e-mail comments 

to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments transmitted 

by electronic mail must—

(1) Contain your e-mail address; 

(2) Reference this notice number on 

the subject line; and 

(3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 

11-inch paper. 

• Online form: We provide a 

comment form with the online copy of 

this notice on our Web site at http://

www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm.

Select the ‘‘Send comments via e-mail’’

link under this notice number. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To 

submit comments to us via the Federal 

e-rulemaking portal, visit http://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Public Disclosure 

You may view copies of this notice, 

the petition, the appropriate maps, and 

any comments we receive by 

appointment at the TTB Library at 1310 

G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 

You may also obtain copies at 20 cents 

per 8.5- by 11-inch page. Contact our 

librarian at the above address or 

telephone 202–927–2400 to schedule an 

appointment or to request copies of 

comments. 

For your convenience, we will post 

this notice and any comments we 

receive on the TTB Web site. We may 

omit voluminous attachments or 

material that we consider unsuitable for 

posting. In all cases, the full comment 

will be available in the TTB Library. To 

access the online copy of this notice, 

visit http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/

index.htm. Select the ‘‘View 

Comments’’ link under this notice 

number to view the posted comments. 

Drafting Information 

Nancy Sutton of the Regulations and 

Procedures Division, Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted 

this notice.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

Notice No. 960 was issued under the 

authority of 27 U.S.C. 205. For the 

reasons discussed in the preambles of 

Notice No. 960 and this notice, we 

propose to amend title 27, chapter I, 

part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows:

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

2. Subpart C is amended by adding 

§ 9.175 to read as follows:

§ 9.175 Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Red 

Hill Douglas County, Oregon’’. For 

purposes of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Red 

Hill Douglas County, Oregon’’ is a term 

of viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate 

maps for determining the boundary of 

the Red Hill Douglas County, Oregon 

viticultural area are three United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 

scale topographic maps. They are: 

(1) Sutherlin, OR (Provisional Edition 

1988); 

(2) Scotts Valley, OR (Provisional 

Edition 1987); and 

(3) Yoncalla, OR (Provisional Edition 

1987). 

(c) Boundary. The Red Hill Douglas 

County, Oregon viticultural area is 

located in Douglas County, Oregon, east 

of Interstate 5 near the hamlet of Rice 

Hill, between the villages of Yoncalla 

and Oakland. 

(1) Beginning on the Yoncalla map 

along the southern boundary of section 

35, T23S/R5W, at the point where a 

pipeline crosses the T23S/T24S 

township line, proceed due west 0.8 

mile along the T23S/24S township line 

to its intersection with the 800-foot 

contour line just west of Pollock Creek 

in section 34, T23S/R5W (Yoncalla 

Quadrangle); then 

(2) Proceed southerly along the 

meandering 800-foot contour line, cross 

onto the Sutherlin map in section 10, 

T24S/R5W, and continue westerly along 

the 800-foot contour line to its first 

intersection with the eastern boundary 

of section 8, T24S/R5W (Sutherlin 

Quadrangle); then 

(3) Proceed northerly along the 

meandering 800-foot contour line, 

return to the Yoncalla map in section 9, 

T23S/R5W, and continue northerly 

along the 800-foot contour line to its 

intersection with the T23S/T24S 

township line very near the northwest 

corner of section 4, T24S/R5W 

(Yoncalla Quadrangle); then 

(4) Proceed northeasterly along the 

800-foot contour line, cross Wilson 

Creek in the northern portion of section 

23, T23S/R5W, pass onto the Scotts 

Valley map in section 14, T23S/R5W, 

and continue northeasterly along the 

800-foot contour line to its intersection 

with the R4W/R5W range line, which at 

that point is also the eastern boundary 

of section 1, T23S/R5W (Scotts Valley 

Quadrangle); then 

(5) Proceed southwesterly along the 

800-foot contour line, re-cross the R4W/

R5W range line, and continue to the 

second intersection of the 800-foot 

contour line and the pipeline in section 

1, T23S/R5W, (Scotts Valley 

Quadrangle); then 

(6) Proceed 5.75 miles southwesterly 

along the pipeline, cross Wilson Creek 

in section 24, T23S/R5W, return to the 

Yoncalla map in section 26, T23S/R5W, 

and continue southwesterly along the 

pipeline to the point of beginning at the 

intersection of the pipeline and the 

T23S/T24S township line in section 35, 

T23S/R5W (Yoncalla Quadrangle).

Signed: January 26, 2005. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–1874 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R07–OAR–2004–MO–0005; FRL–7867–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Missouri for the purpose of establishing 

vapor line requirements necessary to 

achieve Stage I vapor recovery air 

quality benefits in Clay, Jackson, and 

Platte counties in Missouri.

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

March 4, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/

courier; please follow the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule which is located in 

the rules section of this Federal 

Register.