Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5393

TABLE 4.—CYCLIC LIFE EXTENSION—Continued

Engine models 

–524G2, G2–T, 

G3, G3–T, H2, H2–

T, H–36, H–T–36 

–524D4, D4–B, 

D4–B–39, D4X, 

D4X–B, D4–39 

–524B2, B2–B, C2, 

C2–B 

–524B–02, B–B–

02, B3–02, B4–02, 

B4–D–02 

Extension After Passing In-Shop ECI ................................ 3,800 cycles 4,500 cycles 4,500 cycles 4,500 cycles. 

Extension After Passing On-Wing ECI .............................. 1,000 cycles 1,200 cycles 1,200 cycles 1,200 cycles. 

Disks That Have Been Intermixed Between 

Engine Models 

(l) Information on intermixing disks 

between engine models can be found in the 

RR Time Limits Manual, 05–00–01. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(m) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Credit for Previous Inspections 

(n) Inspections done using RR SB No. 

RB.211–72–E150, dated April 17, 2003 are 

acceptable in meeting the requirements of 

this AD. 

Reporting Requirement 

(o) Report findings of all inspections of the 

IP stage 5 disk using paragraph 3.B.(2) of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB 

RB.211–72–D428, Revision 3, dated June 30, 

2003. The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has approved the reporting 

requirements specified in Paragraph 3.B. of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of RR ASB 

RB.211–72–D428, Revision 3, dated June 30, 

2003, and assigned OMB control number 

2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(p) CAA airworthiness directive 006–04–

2002, dated April 2002, also addresses the 

subject of this AD.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

January 25, 2005. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 05–1799 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Notice No. 32] 

RIN: 1513–AA90 

Proposed Establishment of the Covelo 

Viticultural Area (2003R–412P)

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau proposes to establish 

the 38,000-acre ‘‘Covelo’’ viticultural 

area in Mendocino County, California, 

about 150 miles north of San Francisco. 

We designate viticultural areas to allow 

vintners to better describe the origin of 

their wines and to allow consumers to 

better identify wines they may 

purchase. We invite comments on this 

proposed addition to our regulations.

DATES: We must receive written 

comments on or before April 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. 32, 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 petition, the appropriate maps, and 

any comments we receive about this 

proposal 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 the notice and 

comments online at http://www.ttb.gov/

alcohol/rules/index.htm.

See the Public Participation section of 

this notice for specific instructions and 

requirements for submitting comments, 

and for information on how to request 

a public hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. 

A. Sutton, AVA Program Manager, 

Regulations and Procedures Division, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau, 925 Lakeville Street, No.158, 

Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415–

271–1254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 

U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol 

beverage labels provide the consumer 

with adequate information regarding a 

product’s identity and prohibits the use 

of misleading information on those 

labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the 

Secretary of the Treasury to issue 

regulations to carry out its provisions. 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these 

regulations. 

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) 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; 

5394 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

• Evidence relating to the 

geographical features, such as climate, 

elevation, physical features, and soils, 

that distinguish the proposed 

viticultural area from surrounding areas; 

• 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. 

Covelo Petition 

Ralph Carter of Sonoma, California, 

submitted a petition to establish the 

‘‘Covelo’’ viticultural area in northern 

Mendocino County, California. The 

proposed Covelo area is about 150 miles 

north of San Francisco and 45 miles 

north of Ukiah. The proposed boundary 

encompasses Round Valley, Williams 

Valley, and the surrounding foothills. 

The small, rural town of Covelo lies 

within Round Valley, and a portion of 

the Round Valley Indian Reservation 

overlaps the proposed area’s northern 

end. 

This 38,000-acre area currently has 2 

acres of planted grape vines, with the 

potential for more vineyard 

development in the valley and on the 

surrounding hillsides, according to the 

petition. The petition does not 

document a history of grape growing in 

the proposed area. 

According to the petition, the bowlshaped basin of Round Valley, which 

lies within the proposed Covelo 

viticultural area, is distinctly different 

from the long, narrow valleys more 

commonly found in Mendocino County. 

In addition, the petition notes that the 

soils in the proposed Covelo area are, 

for the most part, very deep, nearly level 

loam, which differ significantly from the 

soils in the surrounding areas. The 

proposed Covelo area has a shorter 

growing season when compared with 

other Mendocino County viticultural 

areas, the petition states, along with 

comparatively high annual rain levels 

and some snow. 

Name Evidence 

Covelo is the name of a small, rural 

town within Round Valley in 

Mendocino County, California. The 

town appears on the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle 

maps of Covelo East and Covelo West, 

and on the 2002 Rand McNally 

California map provided with the 

petition. The California State 

Automobile Association’s Mendocino 

and Sonoma Coast map identifies 

Covelo as a rural township in northwest 

California. The 1988 DeLorme Northern 

California map also shows the town of 

Covelo and ‘‘Covelo Road’’ (State 

Highway 162), which runs through the 

proposed viticultural area. 

The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s 

California Climatological Data report of 

October 1999 includes temperature data 

for the Covelo weather station. The 

Covelo East USGS quadrangle map 

shows that the Covelo Ranger Station is 

about a mile north of the town. 

Boundary Evidence 

The distinctive elements of the 

proposed Covelo viticultural area, the 

petition states, are its geography, 

climate, and growing season. The 

proposed Covelo area, as described in 

the petition and noted on USGS maps, 

is largely a round, flat valley isolated 

from surrounding regions by a ring of 

foothills and mountains. The petitioner 

included the foothills immediately 

adjacent to valley floor within the 

proposed area because of the hillside’s 

viticultural potential, but excluded the 

higher and steeper mountainous terrain 

beyond the proposed area’s boundary 

since that mountainous terrain is less 

suitable for commercial viticulture. 

The petition explains that the 

proposed area’s boundaries encompass 

Covelo’s microclimate, which is created 

by the distinct combination of the area’s 

geographic self-containment and its 

inland location. The area’s climate has 

significant day and night temperature 

differences, and a short grape-growing 

season. This isolated valley climate 

differs from the marine-influenced 

climate found in most of the 

surrounding regions of Mendocino 

County. 

The petitioner drew the proposed 

area’s boundary using a series of peaks 

and elevation benchmarks in the hills 

surrounding the Round and Williams 

Valleys. These elevation points vary 

from a low of 1,762 feet on the proposed 

area’s southern boundary to a high of 

2,792 feet on its northern boundary.

Growing Conditions 

Geography 

The proposed Covelo viticultural 

area’s boundary surrounds Round 

Valley, the bowl-shaped basin in which 

the town of Covelo lies. This broad, 

round, and flat-floored valley differs 

significantly from the long, narrow 

valleys commonly found in 

mountainous areas of Mendocino 

County, according to the petition. The 

proposed area also includes the smaller 

Williams Valley, located to Round 

Valley’s northeast, and the hillsides that 

surround the two valleys. The provided 

USGS maps note that Round Valley’s 

floor varies from 1,310 feet in elevation 

in the southeast to 1,480 feet in 

elevation in the northwest, while the 

surrounding hillsides are less than 2,800 

feet high. 

As noted above, the petitioner used a 

series of peaks and elevation points 

under 2,800 feet in elevation to draw the 

boundary of the proposed Covelo 

viticultural area. In contrast to the 

proposed area, the higher elevations of 

the mountains that surround it vary 

between 4,000 and 7,000 feet in 

elevation, according to the petition. 

These higher mountains, the petition 

explains, geographically and 

climatically isolate the proposed Covelo 

viticultural area from surrounding 

regions. 

Climate 

The high mountain peaks that 

surround the proposed area, and the 

Coast Range, which parallels the Pacific 

Ocean to the area’s west, block the 

inland flow of climate-moderating 

marine air and fog into the proposed 

Covelo viticultural area, according to 

the petition. Given this geographic 

isolation, the petition notes, the 

proposed Covelo viticultural area has a 

continental climate, which has greater 

temperature swings and a shorter 

growing season than the marineinfluenced climate commonly found in 

the surrounding regions of Mendocino 

County. 

The proposed Covelo viticultural 

area’s short growing season, the petition 

emphasizes, may be its most 

distinguishing characteristic. The frostfree growing season is commonly 125 

days, or about four months, long. 

Covelo’s average growing season 

minimum temperature is also 

significantly lower than that of the 

established Potter Valley viticultural 

area (27 CFR 9.82), which is about 33 

miles to the proposed area’s south. 

The petition states that with 3,000 

degree days, the Covelo viticultural area 

marginally falls into Region 3, of 

Winkler’s climate classification system. 

(During the growing season, one degree 

day accumulates for each degree 

Fahrenheit that a day’s average 

temperature is above 50 degrees, which 

is the minimum temperature required 

for grapevine growth. See ‘‘General 

Viticulture,’’ by Albert J. Winkler, 

University of California Press, 1974.) 

The table below shows the petitioner’s 

comparison of degree day for grapegrowing regions near the proposed 

Covelo viticultural area.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5395

Mendocino grape-growing

regions 

Summation 

of growing 

season

degree-day 

units 

Covelo ....................................... 3,000 

Hopland .................................... 3,313 

Potter Valley viticultural area 

(27 CFR 9.82) ....................... 3,341 

Redwood Valley viticultural 

area (27 CFR 9.153) ............. 2,914 

Ukiah ......................................... 3,460 

Willits ........................................ 2,224 

According to the petition, the 

proposed Covelo viticultural area’s 

summer temperatures have greater dayto-night variations (between 40 and 66 

degrees in the valley) than the areas 

surrounding it. Also, in October (the 

final month of the summer growing 

season) the proposed viticultural area 

has 90 fewer degree-day units of heat 

than other Region 3 viticultural areas in 

the Mendocino region. 

The proposed Covelo viticultural area, 

the petition notes, receives an average of 

40 inches of rain a year, which is the 

highest average of any valley in 

northern Mendocino County. The 

petition explains, however, that annual 

rainfall in the proposed area varies 

widely. In 1998, the proposed Covelo 

viticultural area received 65 inches of 

rain, while in 2000, it received 36 

inches, according to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s Climatological Data 

Annual Summary reports of California 

for 1997 through 2001, which were 

included in the petition. In addition, the 

proposed Covelo viticultural area’s 

valley basin receives about 7 inches of 

snow annually, with higher amounts 

falling on the surrounding hillsides. 

Geology and Soils 

The petition notes that the proposed 

Covelo viticultural area is composed of 

alluvial plains, alluvial fans, and a 

valley basin, which are geographically 

younger than the surrounding higher 

elevations. While the alluvial deposits 

on the valley floor share the mineralogy 

of the Franciscan rocks of the 

surrounding hills, the petition explains 

that Covelo’s valley basin soils differ 

distinctly from the soils found in the 

foothills surrounding the valley. 

As noted in the petition, FelizRussian-Cole soils cover about 50 

percent of the proposed Covelo 

viticultural area. These soils, which are 

found in the Round Valley basin, have 

neutral-to-alkaline soil pH chemistry, in 

contrast with the acidity found in the 

hillside soils. 

The Sanhedren-Speaker-Kekawaka 

association, which is a deep to very 

deep, well-drained loam and gravelly 

loam, predominates in the northern, 

eastern, and western foothills 

surrounding Round Valley, according to 

the petition. In the southern foothills, 

the Dingman-Beaughton-Henneke 

association (a well-drained, gravelly 

loam and cobbly clay loam) and the 

Hopland-Yorktree-Witherell association 

(a well-drained loam and sandy loam) 

predominate. 

The petition adds that soils of the 

Franciscan Formation, a blue schist and 

semi-schist of Franciscan Complex, 

cover the mountainous terrain above the 

proposed area’s boundary. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative boundary 

description of the petitioned-for 

viticultural area in the proposed 

regulatory text published at the end of 

this notice. 

Maps 

The petitioner(s) provided the 

required maps, and we list them below 

in the proposed regulatory text.

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, ‘‘Covelo,’’ will be recognized 

as a name of viticultural significance. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using 

‘‘Covelo’’ 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. The proposed part 

9 regulatory text set forth in this 

document specifies the ‘‘Covelo’’ 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, and the wine 

must meet the other conditions listed in 

27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). 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 ‘‘Covelo’’ 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 Covelo 

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. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

We invite comments from interested 

members of the public on whether we 

should establish the proposed 

viticultural area. We are also interested 

in receiving comments on the 

sufficiency and accuracy of the name, 

boundary, climactic, and other required 

information submitted in support of the 

petition. Please provide any available 

specific information in support of your 

comments. 

Because of the potential impact of the 

establishment of the proposed Covelo 

viticultural area on brand labels that 

include the words ‘‘Covelo’’ 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. 

Submitting Comments 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this notice. 

Your comments must include this 

notice number and your name and 

mailing address. Your comments 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; 

5396 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Contain a legible, written 

signature; and 

(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. 

You may also write to the 

Administrator before the comment 

closing date to ask for a public hearing. 

The Administrator reserves the right to 

determine, in light of all circumstances, 

whether to hold a public hearing. 

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. 

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- × 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 this proposal 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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this proposed 

regulation, if adopted, would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed regulation imposes no 

new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of a viticultural 

area name would be the result of a 

proprietor’s efforts and consumer 

acceptance of wines from that area. 

Therefore, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required. 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. 

Therefore, it requires no regulatory 

assessment. 

Drafting Information 

N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and 

Procedures Division drafted this notice.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, 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.

2. Amend subpart C by adding 

§ 9.ll to read as follows:

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas

§ 9.ll Covelo. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is 

‘‘Covelo’’. For purposes of part 4 of this 

chapter, ‘‘Covelo’’ is a term of 

viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate 

maps for determining the boundaries of 

the Covelo viticultural area are four 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps. They 

are titled: 

(1) Dos Rios, California Quadrangle—

Mendocino Co., 7.5 Minute Series, 

edition of 1967, revised 1994; 

(2) Covelo West, California 

Quadrangle—Mendocino Co., 7.5 

Minute Series, edition of 1967, 

photoinspected 1973; 

(3) Covelo East, California 

Quadrangle—Mendocino Co., 7.5 

Minute Series, edition of 1967, revised 

1994; and 

(4) Jamison Ridge, California 

Quadrangle—Mendocino Co., 7.5 

Minute Series, edition of 1967, revised 

1994. 

(c) Boundary. The Covelo viticultural 

area surrounds the town of Covelo in 

northern Mendocino County, California, 

about 30 miles east of the Pacific 

Coastline. The area’s boundaries are 

defined as follows—

(1) Beginning on the Dos Rios 

Quadrangle map at the intersection of 

State Highway 162 and the section 25 

and 36 boundary line, T22N, R13W 

(labeled Inspiration Point on the map), 

proceed west 0.3 miles on Highway 162 

to BM 2006 in section 36, T22N, R13W; 

then 

(2) Proceed straight west-northwest 

1.5 miles to the 2,537-foot elevation 

point in the northwest quadrant of 

section 26, T22N, R13W, Dos Rios 

Quadrangle; then 

(3) Proceed straight northwest 1.6 

miles to the 2,488-foot peak in the 

northwest quadrant of section 22, T22N, 

R13W, Covelo West Quadrangle; then 

(4) Proceed straight north-northwest 

0.75 miles to the 2,262-foot peak on the 

section 15 and 16 boundary line, and 

continue straight north 1.6 miles to the 

2,247-foot peak on the section 3 and 4 

boundary line; then 

(5) Proceed straight northerly 1 mile 

to the 1,974-foot peak on the shared 

T22N and T23N boundary line, Covelo 

West Quadrangle, and continue straight 

north 1.6 miles to the 2,290-foot peak in 

the northwest quadrant of section 27, 

T23N, R13W, Covelo West Quadrangle; 

then 

(6) Proceed straight northeast 1.2 

miles to the 2,397-foot peak in the 

northeast quadrant of section 22, and 

continue straight northeast 1.5 miles to 

BM 2210 in the northeast quadrant of 

section 14, T23N, R13W, Covelo West 

Quadrangle; then 

(7) Proceed straight east-southeast 

1.75 miles to the 2,792-foot peak in the 

southwest quadrant of section 18, T23, 

R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then 

(8) Proceed straight northnortheasterly 0.9 mile to the 2,430-foot 

elevation point in the southeast 

quadrant of section 7, T23N, R12W, 

Covelo East Quadrangle; then 

(9) Proceed straight east-northeast 1.6 

miles to the peak of Coyote Rock in 

section 9, T23N, R12W, Covelo East 

Quadrangle; then 

(10) Proceed straight east-southeast 

1.55 miles to the 2,435-foot elevation 

point in the northern half of section 15, 

and continue straight southeast 2.3 

miles to the 2,066-foot peak in the 

southwest quadrant of section 24, T23N, 

R12W, Covelo East Quadrangle; then 

(11) Proceed straight south-southwest 

0.6 mile to the 2,024-foot peak near the 

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.