Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66535

(ii) Annuity at Normal Retirement Age—

Determination of Employee-Derived and

Total Plan Vested Accrued Benefit.

Example 1.

For purposes of this example, it is assumed

that A’s total accrued benefit under the plan

in the normal form of benefit commencing at

normal retirement age is $2,949 per year. A’s

benefit, as of January 1, 2006, would be

determined as follows:

(1) Determine A’s total accrued benefit in

the form of an annual single life annuity

commencing at normal retirement age under

the plan’s formula ($2,949 per year payable

at age 65).

(2) Determine A’s accumulated

contributions with interest to January 1,

1997. As of December 31, 1987, A’s

accumulated contributions with interest

under the plan provisions were $3,021. A’s

employee contributions are accumulated

from December 31, 1987 to January 1, 1997

using 120 percent of the Federal mid-term

rate under section 1274(d). This rate is 10.61

percent for 1988, 11.11 percent for 1989, 9.57

percent for 1990, 9.78 percent for 1991, 8.10

percent for 1992, 7.63 percent for 1993, 6.40

percent for 1994, and 9.54 percent for 1995.

It is assumed for purposes of this example

that 120 percent of the Federal mid-term rate

is 7.00 percent for each year between 1996

and 2006, and that the 30-year Treasury rate

for December 2005 is 8.00 percent. Thus, A’s

contributions accumulated to January 1,

1997, equal $6,480.

(3) Determine A’s accumulated

contributions with interest to normal

retirement age (January 1, 2006) using, for the

1996 plan year and for years until normal

retirement age, 120 percent of the Federal

mid-term rate under section 1274(d), which

is assumed to be 7.00 percent ($11,913).

(4) Determine the accrued annual annuity

benefit derived from A’s contributions by

dividing A’s accumulated contributions

determined in paragraph (3) of this Example

1 by the plan’s appropriate conversion factor.

The plan’s appropriate conversion factor at

age 65 is 9.196, and the accrued benefit

derived from A’s contributions would be

$11,913 ¥ 9.196 = $1,295.

(5) Determine the accrued benefit derived

from employer contributions as the excess, if

any, of the employee’s accrued benefit under

the plan over the accrued benefit derived

from employee contributions

($2,949¥$1,295=$1,654 per year).

(6) Determine the vested percentage of the

accrued benefit derived from employer

contributions under the plan’s vesting

schedule (100 percent).

(7) Determine the vested accrued benefit

derived from employer contributions by

multiplying the accrued benefit derived from

employer contributions by the vested

percentage ($1,654 × 100 percent = $1,654

per year).

(8) Determine A’s vested accrued benefit in

the form of an annual single life annuity

commencing at normal retirement age by

adding the accrued benefit derived from

employee contributions and the vested

accrued benefit derived from employer

contributions, the sum of paragraphs (4) and

(7) of this Example 1 ($1,295 + $1,654 =

$2,949 per year).

Example 2.

This example assumes the same facts as

Example 1 except that A’s total accrued

benefit under the plan in the normal form of

benefit commencing at normal retirement age

is $1,000 per year. A’s benefit, as of January

1, 2006, would be determined as follows:

(1) Determine A’s total accrued benefit in

the form of an annual single life annuity

commencing at normal retirement age under

the plan’s formula ($1,000 per year payable

at age 65).

(2) Determine A’s accumulated

contributions with interest to January 1, 1997

($6,480 from paragraph 2 of Example 1).

(3) Determine A’s accumulated

contributions with interest to normal

retirement age (January 1, 2006) ($11,913

from paragraph 3 of Example 1).

(4) Determine the accrued annual annuity

benefit derived from A’s contributions by

dividing A’s accumulated contributions

determined in paragraph (3) of this Example

2 by the plan’s appropriate conversion factor

($1,295 from paragraph 4 of Example 1).

(5) Determine the accrued benefit derived

from employer contributions as the excess, if

any, of the employee’s accrued benefit under

the plan over the accrued benefit derived

from employee contributions. Because the

accrued benefit derived from employee

contributions ($1,295) is greater than the

employee’s accrued benefit under the plan

($1,000), the accrued benefit derived from

employer contributions is zero, and A’s

vested accrued benefit in the form of an

annual single life annuity commencing at

normal retirement age is $1,295 per year.

(d) Delegation to Commissioner. The

Commissioner may prescribe additional

guidance on calculating the accrued

benefit derived from employee

contributions under a defined benefit

plan through publication in the Internal

Revenue Bulletin of revenue rulings,

notices, or other documents (see

§ 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter).

* * * * *

(g) Effective date. Paragraphs (c)(1),

(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6) and (d) of this

section are effective for plan years

beginning on or after January 1, 1997.

Margaret Milner Richardson,

Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 95–31006 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

RIN 1512–AA07

[Notice No. 817]

The Malibu-Newton Canyon Viticultural

Area (95R–014P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms, Department of the

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has

received a petition proposing the

establishment of a viticultural area in

the State of California to be known as

‘‘Malibu-Newton Canyon.’’ This

proposal is the result of a petition

submitted by Mr. George Rosenthal,

President of Rancho Escondido, Inc.

ATF believes that the establishment of

viticultural area names as appellations

of origin in wine labeling and

advertising allows wineries to designate

the specific areas where the grapes used

to make the wine were grown and

enables consumers to better identify the

wines they purchase.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by February 20, 1996.

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. 817). Copies of the petition,

the proposed regulations, the

appropriate maps, and any written

comments received will be available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at: ATF Reading Room,

Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure,

Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David 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 FR

56692) which added a new Part 9 to 27

CFR, for the listing of approved

American viticultural areas.

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

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographical

features, the boundaries of which have

been delineated in Subpart C of Part 9.

Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the

procedure for proposing an American

viticultural area. Any interested person

may petition ATF to establish a grape-
66536 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 the features which can be

found on United States Geological

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

applicable scale; and

(e) A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S.

map(s) with the boundaries prominently

marked.

Petition

ATF has received a petition from Mr.

George Rosenthal, President of Rancho

Escondido, Inc., proposing to establish a

new viticultural appellation in the

Malibu area of Los Angeles County,

California, to be known as ‘‘MalibuNewton Canyon.’’ The viticultural area,

comprising approximately 850 acres, is

located within Newton Canyon which is

a bowl shaped valley located on the

south facing side of the Santa Monica

Mountains. Vineyards currently within

the proposed viticultural area are

located on the Rancho Escondido Estate.

Rancho Escondido is comprised of

approximately 157 acres, all of which

lies within the proposed ‘‘MalibuNewton Canyon’’ viticultural area.

Approximately, 14 of these acres are

planted with premium wine producing

vineyards. Varietals include Cabernet

Savignon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc,

Chardonnay and Petite Verdot.

Currently, there are no wineries located

within the proposed ‘‘Malibu-Newton

Canyon’’ area. The petition provides the

following information as evidence that

the proposed area meets the regulatory

requirements discussed previously.

Evidence That the Name of the Area Is

Locally or Nationally Known

According to the petitioner, the origin

of the name Malibu comes from the

ancient Chumash Indian word MALA I

BOO, meaning ‘‘Place on the Cliff,’’ and

was the name of an Indian village just

beyond Malibu Beach. After the

Spaniards took control of southern

California, the encompassing Chumash

ranchera UMALIBO became known as

the Malibu Rancho. A Spanish settler,

Jose Bartolome Tapia gained control of

the rancho and was later granted the

land by the Governor of the Californias.

The present day spelling appears on the

name of the Topanga Malibu Sequit

grant dated July 12, 1805. It originally

totalled 13,315 acres, one of the largest

southern California Ranchos at that

time.

The petitioner further states that

throughout the 19th century, Rancho

Malibu changed hands many times but

remained intact. Until the construction

of the Pacific Coast Highway in the

1930’s, the privacy of Rancho Malibu

had not been invaded. With the

burgeoning economy of southern

California, conditions greatly changed.

This historic rancho was finally

subdivided during the same decade.

Following soon after, the famous Malibu

Beach Colony was established where

movie stars and industry moguls began

constructing their homes. The Malibu

area then quickly developed into the

highly recognized community of Los

Angeles as it is known today.

Throughout this region there exists

topography in the form of roads, a creek,

a lake, a canyon, a beach, hiking trails,

parks, vistas, etc. which denote the

name ‘‘Malibu.’’ The region lying

roughly from the ridge line of the Santa

Monica Mountains to the ocean, and

from Topanga Canyon to the Ventura

County line is commonly known as

Malibu, according to the petitioner.

While the city of Malibu was

incorporated in 1992, the entire

surrounding area described above

continues to be recognized as Malibu.

‘‘Malibu’’ could be applied to any of the

hills/mountains which drain toward the

ocean through the city of Malibu,

including Newton Canyon, the location

of the proposed viticultural area.

The petitioner provided a 1:250,000

scale Topopgraphic-Bathymetric map of

Los Angeles to document the use of the

name, ‘‘Malibu.’’ An article in the

October 15, 1994, issue of the ‘‘Wine

Spectator,’’ entitled ‘‘A Vineyard Grows

in Malibu Canyon,’’ refers to the area

around ‘‘The Malibu Estate’’ (Rancho

Escondido, Inc.) as ‘‘Malibu Hills.’’

Also, included as an exhibit was a copy

of an article from, ‘‘The Underground

Wine Journal,’’ 1994, entitled,

‘‘Distinctive New Wines.’’ This article

refers to ‘‘The Malibu Estate’’ as being

located ‘‘in the hills above Malibu.’’

According to the petitioner, the name

‘‘Newton Canyon’’ is generally known

as describing the specific area in which

the proposed viticultural area is located.

This is evidenced by the name of the

main street running through the

proposed viticultural area—‘‘Newton

Canyon Road.’’ In addition, maps of the

area, including the U.S.G.S. map

referenced and shown within the

petition, label the area as, ‘‘Newton

Canyon.’’ The petitioner states that,

‘‘’Newton Canyon alone is not

descriptive enough to describe the

general location of the proposed

viticultural area, and further, might

possibly cause public confusion in

relation to Newton Vineyards, located in

the Napa Valley.’’ Therefore, the

petitioner proposed the name, ‘‘MalibuNewton Canyon.’’

Historical or Current Evidence That the

Boundaries of the Proposed Viticultural

Area Are as Specified in the Petition

The boundaries of the proposed

‘‘Malibu-Newton Canyon’’ viticultural

area follow the natural ridge lines which

define Newton Canyon and are

delineated on the U.S.G.S. Point Dume,

California, quadrangle map.

Newton Canyon is a bowl shaped

valley located on the south facing side

of the Santa Monica Mountains, in the

Malibu area of Los Angeles County. The

canyon is oriented along an east-west

axis. The valley floor lies at an elevation

of approximately 1,400 feet. The

surrounding ridgeline ranges in

elevation from 1,800–2,100 feet on the

southern ocean side of the canyon,

continuing to 2,100–2,800 feet on the

high side of the canyon to the north.

According to the petitioner, the

elevation of the southern rim of the

canyon is low enough to allow evening

fog to sift into the valley, but high

enough to keep out the marine layer that

shrouds much of the coastline

throughout the daytime. The northern

rim of the canyon joins the crest of the

Santa Monica Mountains that divides

oceanside from leeside. Lying at the

eastern most side of the canyon, Castro

Peak is another distinguishing feature

which marks one of the highest points

in the Santa Monica Mountains at 2,824

feet.

The petitioner further states that

approximately two-thirds of the

surrounding Malibu area contains

slopes greater than 25 percent, with

only one-fifth having relatively level

terrain. Throughout the past several

decades, most of the usable land in the

Malibu area has been developed.

Because of increasingly high land

prices, very little of the land in the

general Malibu area is still used for

agriculture. The Santa Monica

Mountains also have thousands of acres

dedicated to State and national parks,

with more acreage being aggressively

acquired by public conservation

agencies.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66537

Evidence Relating to the Geographical

Features (Climate, Soil, Elevation,

Physical Features, etc.) Which

Distinguish the Viticultural Features of

the Proposed Area From Surrounding

Areas

Climate

Based upon a 1994 climate study

completed by Fox Weather, Oxnard,

California, the petitioner asserts the

following: The general climate of the

Malibu area is typical of southern

California with mild rainy winters, and

warm dry summers. However, there are

several climatological factors which

distinguish the proposed ‘‘MalibuNewton Canyon’’ viticultural area from

the surrounding region.

While summer temperatures often

exceed 80 degrees in the afternoon,

cooling ocean breezes flow into the

valley in the evening, according to the

petitioner. Moreover, during the evening

and early morning a light fog often

filters into the valley and settles along

the slopes, creating a unique

microclimate which is significantly

cooler than the surrounding inland

areas. Typically, the morning sun shines

through the fog, which in turn is swept

out by warm winds and high daytime

temperatures. The valley enjoys

southern exposure to the sun

throughout the afternoon. According to

the petitioner, these conditions are ideal

for premium grape growing.

Because of its high elevation and

orientation, the proposed viticultural

area does not experience the constantly

overcast skies and cooler temperatures

of the coastal region immediately below.

Newton Canyon, within which the

proposed viticultural area is located, is

a unique pocket protected from marine

influence. The coastline near sea level is

a more temperate climate controlled by

marine stratus with uniformly cold

temperatures, fog and low clouds. This

cooler and more humid coastal

environment, mainly affecting areas

below the 1,300 foot level, can create

grape rot and delay maturation.

The petitioner claims that the

proposed ‘‘Malibu-Newton Canyon’’

viticultural area is, in the daytime, a

sunny warm oasis for a coastal location.

The proposed area is located at an

elevation which lies just at the bottom

of the inversion layer and just at the top

of the marine layer. Typically, the

marine layer ceiling is approximately

1,400 feet on average. The southern or

bottom rim of the canyon acts as a

barrier to the marine layer, preventing

the bulk of the coastal fog and low

clouds from penetrating the valley for

extended periods of time. This allows

the ‘‘Malibu-Newton Canyon’’ area to

enjoy favorable cooling effects of the

Pacific ocean and have the warm sunny

daytime temperatures found in the

adjacent interior valleys.

Nearby inland areas experience

uniformly hot summer temperatures

similar to those experienced in the

upper elevations on the oceanside of the

Santa Monica Mountains. However,

these inland areas receive little or no fog

and much less precipitation than the

oceanside regime, according to the

petitioner.

An additional distinctive aspect is an

increasing amount of precipitation with

increasing elevation. The petitioner

states that upland weather stations

report practically twice the mean

precipitation of the nearby lowland

stations. Furthermore, the greatest

monthly precipitation during the rainy

season is from 1.5 to 3.0 times as great

as that for the lowland stations.

Precipitation is concentrated in the

winter months. The average annual

rainfall is about 24 inches, with

approximately 12 percent occurring

from the months of April to October.

The proposed area experiences typical

low temperatures in the winter time,

just above freezing temperatures.

Infrequent winter freezes have been

known to occur during the dormant

winter growing cycle.

In summary, the petitioner states that

the proposed viticultural area is

characterized by an isolated

microclimate that captures the favorable

climatic conditions necessary for

premium wine grape growing. In

contrast, the petitioner states that the

surrounding areas found on the

oceanside of the Santa Monica

Mountains (i.e, Malibu, Oxnard, Santa

Monica) are uniformly cool and

overcast. Surrounding inland areas

found on the leeside of the Santa

Monica Mountains (i.e, Thousand Oaks,

Agoura, Woodland Hills) are uniformly

hot and dry. The petitioner provided a

diagram illustrating the ‘‘MalibuNewton Canyon’’ microclimate and a

November 29, 1994,

‘‘CLIMATOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR

RANCHO ESCONDIDO VINEYARDS,’’

by Alan D. Fox of Fox Weather.

Physical Features

According to the petitioner, the

primary distinction of the proposed

viticultural area is its unique

combination of shape, elevation,

orientation and relative location to the

marine influences of the Pacific Ocean.

The proposed area lies within a clearly

defined valley with a ‘‘bowl’’ shape

resting high on the oceanside of the

Santa Monica Mountains. These

physical features create a pocket which

harbors the distinct microclimate

described above. The petitioner

provided aerial photos to illustrate these

physical features.

Drainage

All of the proposed viticultural area

drains into Newton Canyon Creek,

continuing to Zuma Creek which then

drains into the Pacific Ocean at Point

Dume’s westward beach, according to

the petitioner.

Soils

As evidence of soil types, the

petitioner provided a 1994 soils study

completed by Soil & Plant Laboratory,

Inc., Orange, California, in addition to

‘‘Soils of the Malibu Area California’’

published by the Soil Conservation

Service, United States Department of

Agriculture.

According to this information, major

soils within the proposed viticultural

area range from loam to clay loam in

texture. Subsoil texture ranges from clay

loam to clay. Current plantings are

mainly on Castaic and Rincon silty clay

loams and Malibu loam which are lower

elevation terrace soils that are

moderately deep, with favorable

Capability Class ratings of II to IV.

Steeper hillside soils (mostly above the

1,700 foot contour line) are shallower

with Capability Class ratings ranging

from IV to VIII.

Soils in the proposed viticultural area

have moderate to high inherent fertility.

Soil reaction in surface soils ranges from

moderately acid to slightly alkaline.

Subsoil ph varies with type and several

areas are calcareous.

According to the petitioner, soil tests

performed prior to the planting of

vineyards in 1988 revealed that the

topsoil found in much of lower Newton

Canyon contained crushed rock, as a

result of the construction of the nearby

Kanan Dume Road tunnel, which is

ideal for good drainage.

The surrounding areas are mainly

steep hillsides and mountainous

uplands with poor soil capability. These

soils are usually shallower than those

found in the proposed viticultural area,

and are subject to erosion.

Proposed Boundary

The boundary of the proposed

‘‘Malibu-Newton Canyon’’ viticultural

area may be found on one United States

Geological Survey map, entitled Point

Dume Quadrangle, California, 7.5

minute series, with a scale of 1:24,000.

Public Participation—Written

Comments

ATF requests comments from all

interested parties. Comments received
66538 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 a 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 x 11’’ in size, (3)

contain a written signature, and (4) are

3 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.

During the comment period, 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 60-day comment

period. However, the Director reserves

the right to determine, in light of all

circumstances, whether a public hearing

will be held.

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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this

proposed regulation will not have a

significant economic 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 describe more

accurately 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 area.

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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96–

511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its

implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part

1320, do not apply to this notice of

proposed rulemaking because no

requirement to collect information is

proposed.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

is David 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

Par. 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 § 9.152 to read as follows:

* * * * *

§ 9.152 Malibu-Newton Canyon.

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural

area described in this petition is

‘‘Malibu-Newton Canyon.’’

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate

map for determining the boundary of

the Malibu-Newton Canyon viticultural

area is the U.S.G.S. map, ‘‘Point Dume

Quadrangle, California’’ (7.5 Minute

Series 1:24,000 Topographic map,

photorevised 1981).

(c) Boundary. The Malibu-Newton

Canyon viticultural area is located in

Los Angeles County, California. The

boundary is as follows:

(1) Beginning at the intersection of the

Newton Canyon creek (lowest elevation)

and an unnamed medium duty road

referred to by the petitioner as Kanan

Dume Road at the boundary of section

13 and 18 on the U.S.G.S. map ‘‘Point

Dume Quadrangle.’’

(2) Then south along Kanan Dume

Road to the point where an unnamed,

unimproved dirt road referred to by the

petitioner as Ramerez Mountain Way

crosses over Kanan Dume Road at the

tunnel in the northwest corner of

section 19.

(3) Then east along Ramerez

Mountain Way, following the southern

ridgeline of Newton Canyon, to Latigo

Canyon Road in the southwest corner of

section 17.

(4) Then south along Latigo Canyon

Road to an unnamed, unimproved dirt

road referred to by the petitioner as

Newton Mountain Way at the southern

boundary of section 17.

(5) Then northeast along Newton

Mountain Way, following the

southeastern ridgeline of Newton

Canyon, to an unnamed, unimproved

dirt road referred to by the petitioner as

Castro Mountain Way in section 16.

(6) Then west along Castro Mountain

Way, past Castro Peak, following the

northern ridgeline of Newton Canyon to

Latigo Canyon Road in section 18.

(7) Then southwest along the natural

ridgeline of Newton Canyon to the

intersection of Kanan Dume Road and

the 1,600 foot contour line in the

southeastern portion of section 13.

(8) Then southeasterly along Kanan

Dume Road to the beginning point.

Signed: December 11, 1995.

Daniel R. Black,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 95–31169 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

ARCHITECTURAL AND

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191

Accessibility Guidelines for Play

Facilities

AGENCY: Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

ACTION: Notice of intent to form a

regulatory negotiation committee.

SUMMARY: The Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board (Access Board) proposes to

establish a regulatory negotiation

committee to develop a proposed rule

on accessibility guidelines for newly