Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 4009

by regulations promulgated under § 107.250 Termination of an Infant formula Part 7 of this chapter specify procedures section 412(i)(2) of the act; or recall. that may be useful to a recalling firm in (2) May be otherwise adulterated or The recalling firm may submit a determining how to comply with these misbranded. recommendation for termination of the regulations. (b) Method of notification.The recall to the appropriate Food and Drug notification made pursuant to Administration district office listed in § 107.280 Records retention. § 107.240(a) shall be made, by telephone. § 5.115 of this chapter for transmittal to Each manufacturer of an infant to the Director of the appropriate Food the Division of Regulatory Guidance, formula shall make and retain such and Drug Administration district office Center for Food Safety and Applied records respecting the distribution of the specified in § 5.115 of this chapter. After Nutrition, for action. Any such infant formula through any normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 recommendation shall contain establishment owned or operated by p.m.), FDA's emergency number, 202- information supporting a conclusion that such manufacturer as may be necessary 857-8400, shall be used. The the recall strategy has been effective. to effect and monitor recalls of the manufacturer shall send written The agency will respond within 15 days formula. Such records shall be retained confirmation of the notification to the of receipt by the Division of Regulatory for at least I year after the expiration of Division of Regulatory Guidance (HFF- Guidance, Center for Food Safety and the shelf life of the infant formula. 310), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, of the request for Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug (Collection of information requirements in termination. The recalling firm shall this section were approved by the Office of Administration, 200 C St. SW., continue to implement the recall Washington, DC 20204, and to the Management and Budget under OMB control strategy until it receives final written number 0910-0188.) appropriate Food and Drug notification from the agency that the Administration district office specified recall has been terminated. The agency Dated: December 22, 1988. in § 5.115 of this chapter. will send such a notification unless it Frank E. Young, (c) Reports about an infant formula has information, from FDA's own audits Commissioner of Foodand Drugs. recall--(1) Telephone report. When a or from other sources, demonstrating [FR Doc. 89-1719 Filed 1-26-89; 8:45 am] determination is made that an infant that the recall has not been effective. BILUNG CODE 4160-01 formula is to be recalled, the recalling The agency may conclude that a recall firm shall telephone within 24 hours the has not been effective if: appropriate Food and Drug (a) The recalling firm's distributors Administration district office listed in have failed to retrieve the recalled DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY § 5.115 of this chapter and shall provide infant formula; or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and relevant information about the infant (b) Stocks of the recalled infant formula that is to be recalled. formula remain in distribution channels Firearms (2) Initialwritten report. Within 14 that are not in direct control of the days after the recall has begun, the recalling firm. 27 CFR Part 9 recalling firm shall provide a written § 107.260 Revision of an Infant formula report to the appropriate Food and Drug [T.D. ATF-281; Ref: Notice Nos. 620,644, recall. Administration district office. The report 6471 shall contain relevant information, If after a review of the recalling firm's including the following cumulative recall strategy or periodic reports or Stags Leap District Viticultural Area information concerning the infant other monitoring of the recall, the Food formula that is being recalled: and Drug Administration concludes that AGENCY: (i) Number of consignees notified of the actions of the recalling firm are Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of the the recall, and date and method of deficient, the agency shall notify the Treasury. notification, including, for a recall recalling firm of any serious deficiency. pursuant to § 107.200 information about The agency may require the firm to: ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision. the notice provided for retail display (a) Change the extent of the recall, if and the request for its display. the agency concludes on the basis of SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a (ii) Number of consignees responding available data that the depth of the viticultural area in Napa County, to the recall communication and recall is not adequate in light of the risk California, to be known as "Stags Leap quantity of recalled infant formula on to human health presented by the infant District." The northern boundary alone hand at the time it was received. formula. has been modified from that originally (iii) Quantity of recalled infant (b) Carry out additional effectiveness proposed, to the Yountville Cross Road. formula returned or corrected by each checks, if the agency's audits, or other The establishment of viticultural areas consignee contacted and the quantity of information, demonstrate that the recall and the subsequent use of viticultural recalled infant formula accounted for. has not been effective. area names as appellations of origin in (iv) Number and results of (c) Issue additional notifications to the wine labeling and advertising will help effectiveness checks that were made. firm's direct accounts, if the agency's consumers better identify the wines they (v) Estimated timeframes for audits, or other information demonstrate may purchase, and will help completion of the recall. that the original notifications were not winemakers distinguish their products (3) Status reports. The recalling firm received, or were disregarded in a from wines made in other areas. shall submit to the appropriate Food and significant number of cases. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1989. Drug Administration district office a written status report on the recall at § 107.270 Compliance with this subparL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: least every 14 days until the recall is A recalling firm may satisfy the James P. Ficaretta, Wine and Beer terminated. The status report shall requirements of this subpart by any Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and describe the steps taken by the recalling means reasonable calculated to meet the Firearms, Ariel Rios Federal Building, firm to carry out the recall since the last obligations set forth in this Subpart E. 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., repnrt and the results of these steps. The recall guidelines in Subpart C of Washington, DC 20226 (202-566-7626). 4010 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1,350 acres of grapes, and is entirely boundaries as proposed in the Second I. Background within the Napa Valley viticultural area. Amendment, and requested comments. A. History Ill. Rulemaking Proceeding Written comments were to be received On August 23, 1978, ATF published on or before April 13, 1987. A. Petition Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR 37672, C. Comments 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR On August 22, 1985, the Stags Leap Part 4. These regulations allow the Appellation Committee (hereinafter ATF received two comments in establishment of definite viticultural referred to as Group A), petitioned ATF response to the notice of proposed areas. The regulations also allow the for establishment of a viticultural area rulemaking. One comment in particular, name of an approved viticultural area to in Napa Valley, California, to be known dated April 10, 1987. was submitted by be used as an appellation of origin on as "Stags Leap." The area proposed by Mr. Stanley Anderson of S. Anderson wine labels and in wine advertisements. the petitioners consisted of Vineyard. Mr. Anderson, who owns a On October 2, 1979, ATF published approximately 2,200 acres (including winery and vineyards located just north Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR 56692) approximately 1,100 acres of vineyards), of the proposed northern boundary, which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR, situated east of the city of Yountville, requested that the northern boundary be providing for the listing of approved and five to eight miles north of the City extended approximately 500 yards. He American viticultural areas, the names of Napa. The proposed area was suggested that the Yountville Cross of which may be used as appellations of surrounded by hills to the north, east, Road would be a more appropriate origin. and west, and was configured like a boundary than the peaks of hills as B. Regulatory Criteria funnel. proposed in Notice No. 620. The Group A then submitted Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27, CFR, an proposed revision would add 150 acres amendment defines an American viticultural area as to its petition, dated to the proposed Stags Leap District, for a December a delimited grape-growing region 18, 1985 (hereinafter referred total size of approximately 2,700 acres. distinguishable by geographical to as the First Amendment) and With the exception of the northern requested, features, the boundaries of which have among other things, that the boundary, Mr. Anderson supported the name of the proposed viticultural area been delineated in Subpart C of Part 9. other boundaries as proposed in the be Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the changed from "Stags Leap" to "Stags notice. Leap District." procedure for proposing an American This was done in order to Attached to Mr. Anderson's comment viticultural area. The petition should underscore further the difference were letters from several neighboring include- between the viticultural area vineyard owners who are also located in (a) Evidence that the name of the designation and the names of two the proposed "northern extension," all proposed viticultural area is locally wineries within the proposed of whom supported the extension of the appellation, and/or nationally known as referring to Stag's Leap Wine Cellars northern boundary to the Yountville the area specified in the petition; and Stags' Leap Winery. Cross Road. Mr. Anderson, and those of (b) Historical or current evidence that On June 26, 1986, Group A submitted a his neighbors who supported the the boundaries of the viticultural area second amendment and supplement to northern extension, will hereinafter be are as specified in the petition; its original petition (hereinafter referred referred to as Group B. (c) Evidence relating to the to as the Second Amendment). The geographical characteristics (climate, Second Amendment requested a D. Hearing soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) revision of the northern and western boundaries of the proposed Stags Leap In consideration of the comments which distinguish the viticultural received, ATF determined that the features of the proposed area from District. Attached to the Second Amendment was a research document public interest would best be served by surrounding areas: holding a public hearing on the matter. (d) A description of the specific prepared by Silverado Vineyards, in support of Group A's contention that the Pursuant to Notice No. 644, published on boundaries of the viticultural area, September 29, 1987 (52 FR 36431), ATF based on features which can be found Napa River, rather than the peaks of the hills west of the Silverado Trail, was the held a hearing on December 1 and 2, on United States Geological Survey 1987, in Yountville, California, (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable appropriate western boundary for the proposed viticultural area, and the ring concerning establishment of the scale; and viticultural area. ATF (e) A of hills to the north was a more heard oral copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S. comments from 32 persons. At the map(s) with the boundaries prominently appropriate northern boundary. The revision of the northern and western hearing, Mr. George Altamura (Altamura marked. Vineyards &Winery), requested that the It. General Description-Final Rule boundaries added approximately 350 acres to the proposed viticultural area, southern boundary of the proposed The Stags Leap District viticultural for a total size of approximately 2,550 viticultural area be extended area is located east of the city of acres. Included within the extended (approximately 2 miles) in order to Yountville and approximately seven boundaries were previously excluded include his vineyard and winery. miles north of the city of Napa. It is vineyards owned by, among others, As specified in Notice No. 644, written bounded on the north by the Yountville Silverado Vineyards and Mondavi comments were to be received on or Cross Road, on the east by the Stags Winery. before December 15, 1987. This date was Leap mountain range (400 foot contour then extenjd until January 15, B. Notice 1988 line), on the south by a drainage creek (Notice W r, 52 FR 44917; November that intersects the Silverado Trail at In response to the Second 23, 1987). In response to Notice Nos. 644 about the 60 foot contour line, and on Amendment, ATF published Notice No. and 647, the Bureau received 167 the west by the Napa River. This 620 in the Federal Register on February comments, representing 172 signatures. viticultural area consists of 11, 1987 (52 FR 4350), proposing ATF also received nine comments after approximately 2,700 acres, includes nine establishment of the Stags Leap District the expiration of the comment period. bonded wineries and approximately viticultural area. The notice detailed the All comments were given careful Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 4011

consideration in the preparation of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) Sauvignon took first place at a blind final rule. and comments received in response to tasting in Paris, France. (Petition, p. 14). TV. Decision the hearing notices, comments will be While there was general agreement referred to as either (NPRM Comment about the history of Stags Leap, the After extensive consideration of the * * * ) or (hearing Comment * * issues of contention during this evidence and comments presented A. Name rulemaking proceeding have centered regarding establishment of a Stags Leap around the northern boundary in District viticultural area, ATF finds that Both Group A and Group B submitted particular and, to a lesser degree, the the evidence submitted with respect to evidence which clearly established that southern and western boundaries. the boundaries proposed by Group B there exists an area in Napa County, satisfies the regulatory criteria set forth California, east of Yountville, with a 1. Southern Boundary in § 4.25a(e)(2) of Title 27, Code of viticultural history, known both At the public hearing, Mr. George Federal Regulations, for the historically and currently as Stags Leap Altamura (Altamura establishment of the Vineyards & Stags Leap District District. (Petition, pp. 2-17; NPRM Winery) commented that the area in viticultural area. Comment 1). The only dispute regarding which Although recognizing that there his vineyards and winery are is the name Stags Leap District concerns located shares many of the same evidence which would support both the specific boundaries of the Group A and Group B in this matter, geographical features found within the viticultural area known by that name. proposed Stags Leap District, including ATF finds that the greater weight of Accordingly, ATF finds, based on the evidence supports the Group B proposal. soil series, vegetation, and air-flow evidence, that both Group A and Group pattern. Because of this, Mr. Altamura ATF finds that the general area B satisfied the criteria of 27 CFR encompassed within the boundaries proposed that the southern boundary of 4.25a(e)(2)(i) concerning the name of the the viticultural area be extended, proposed by Group B is locally referred viticultural area. to as Stags Leap District. In the Bureau's approximately two miles, to a point view, Group B adequately demonstrated B. Boundaries where Soda Creek flows into the Napa that their proposed area reflects the Group A submitted evidence that River. (Tr. Vol. III, pp. 139-145). Mr. current definition of Stags Leap District. historically, the name Stags Leap was Altamura submitted evidence indicating Further, ATF finds that the used solely in reference to Horace and that certain soils in the proposed distinguishing features in the area Minnie Chase's summer manor house southern extension (e.g., Haire series) proposed by Group A are also present in (Stags Leap Manor) constructed in 1890, were also found in the proposed Stags the northern extension proposed by their winery built in 1893. and the rocky Leap District. (Hearing Exhibit 39; Group B. Specifically, the soils in the promontory overlooking the area. Hearing Comment 81). northern extension are more similar to (Petition, pp. 2-7, p. 25). For example, In a post-hearing written comment the soils within the area originally the petitioners submitted a copy of a (Hearing Comment 48), Mr. Ernie Weir proposed than to the soils outside the wine label from the Chase winery of Hagafen Cellars stated that if the proposed Stags Leap District. ATF indicating the name "Stags' Leap." southern boundary was to be extended believes that the soils (including (Petition, Exhibit 4). They also stated to include Mr. Altamura, he would also subsoils) are the primary distinguishing that "when old timers talk about the like his vineyards and winery to be geographical feature of the Stags Leap boundaries of Stags Leap District, they included, however, "perhaps a more District. are more likely to be referring to the old appropriate and correct southern border In contrast, ATF finds that the Chase place and its immediate vicinity will not include either of us." evidence submitted in support of the than they are to the broader viticultural Neither Mr. Altamura nor Mr. Weir proposed extension of the southern area, which did not begin to be called submitted evidence which would boundary did not satisfy the regulatory Stags Leap until some time in the 1970s." indicate that the name "Stags Leap" was criteria. Specifically, there was no (Second Amendment, p. 12). locally or nationally known as referring evidence that the area within the Since the early 1970's, Mr. Carl to the proposed southern extension. proposed southern extension is locally Doumani (Stags' Leap Winery) and Mr. As previously mentioned, the or nationally known as "Stags Leap Warren Winiarski (Stag's Leap Wine regulations in 27 CFR 4.25a(e)(2) outline (District)." Cellars) have included various brand the procedure for proposing an The boundaries of the viticultural area and trade names on their wine labels American viticultural area. In particular, established by this final rule generally which incorporate the geographic §§ 4.25a(e)(2) (i) and (ii) specify that correspond to the area initially proposed designation Stags Leap. (Petition, pp. 11- evidence must be submitted indicating by Group B, with modifications to avoid 12; Petition, Exhibit 10). that the name of the viticultural area is dividing existing vineyards. The specific In a 1973 court decision involving locally and/or nationally known as boundaries of the viticultural area may litigation over the use of the name Stags referring to the area in the petition, and be found at § 9.117. Leap, the judge ruled that "to a person that the boundaries of the viticultural of ordinary * * * V. Evidence intelligence 'STAG'S area are as specified in the petition. LEAP' is a designation for a substantial Based on the information in the The following summarizes the area or a range of mountains or hills." rulemaking record, there is no evidence evidence on which this final rule is (Petition, p. 10). Thereafter, in the 1974 as to name, either historical or current, based. As applicable, the petition, promotional material for his winery, Mr. to support an extension of the southern amendments, comments, and public Winiarski noted that "Stag's Leap is a boundary from that proposed in Notice hearing transcripts and exhibits are regional designation which should in No. 620. Therefore, ATF is not extending cross-referenced. This is indicated by time become as familiar to wine buyers the southern boundary as proposed by parenthetical notations such as as certain domaines in European wine- Mr. Altamura. (Petition, p. * * * ), (Tr. Vol. * * *, p. growing regions." (Petition, pp. 15-16; * * * ), (Hearing Exhibit * ), etc. In Petition, Exhibit 10). The name Stags 2. Northern Boundary addition, to distinguish between Leap gained further prominence when, Conflicting evidence as to the comments received in response to the in 1976, Mr. Winiarski's 1973 Cabernet northern boundary was submitted in the 4012 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

petition, comments, and public hearing being within the Yountville area, rather described the Stags Leap District as testimony. In its initial petition, Group A than the "Stags Leap District." (NPRM consisting of only 450 acres (Petition, noted that there had been lively Comment 2; Hearing Comment 29). Exhibit 13, The Wine Spectator,January disagreement among the wine press over Group B presented evidence that the 1-31, 1985, "Standing Fast for the boundaries of Stags Leap District. terms Yountville and Stags Leap District Cabernet"), while in another article, it (Petition, p. 32). Group A and Group B were not mutually exclusive, and stated was described as consisting of 1,000 both presented letters and declarations that residents within the proposed Stags acres. (Petition, Exhibit 13, Friends of from long-time residents of the area, Leap Dsitrict and the proposed northern Wine, April-May 1984, "Napa Winery which presented conflicting extension had ties to the cities of Napa Profiles: The Quest For Site"). recollections of the boundaries of the and Yountville. Mrs. Dorothy Barboza, a Some of the evidence submitted was Stags Leap District. (Petition, vineyard owner in the northern susceptible of more than one Declarations B and C; NPRM Comment extension, submitted evidence that interpretation. For example, in support 1, Exhibits J-1 and P-i; Hearing Exhibit various vineyards and wineries located of the extended northern boundary, 2; Hearing Exhibit 28). Based on the within the boundaries of the proposed Group B submitted as evidence a map evidence presented, ATF finds that Stags Leap District were listed in the while there are differences in the prepared by the U.S. Department of telephone book as being in Yountville Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation recollections of local residents as to the and Napa. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 58; Hearing boundaries of the Stags Leap District, Service (SCS) which included a sub- Exhibit 33). Mrs. Barboza also submitted district known as "South East Yountville there is evidence to support the evidence that three of the wineries in Stag's Leap Area." (NPRM Comment 1, conclusion that the northern extension is the proposed Stags Leap District were pp. 6-7). The known locally as part of Stags Leap sub-district had as its members of the Yountville Chamber of northern boundary District. the Yountville Cross Commerce. (Hearing Exhibit 35). In Road, and as its western boundary the Mr. William F. Heintz, addition, Mrs. Barboza submitted a wine labels Napa River. Although the southern historian, testified on behalf of Group A for one winery in the proposed Stags boundary extended almost all the way at the public hearing. Mr. Heintz stated Leap District indicating Yountville as its to the city of Napa, it did not include the that in the 1880s, the Napa Wine location. (Hearing Exhibit 30). vineyards owned by Mr. Altamura or Growers Association created a series of Group B argued that there was no Mr. Weir. sub-districts within the southern part of uniformity in self-description in the Napa Valley, for the purpose of Stags Leap District; thus, there was no Group A countered with the claim that gathering data. Mr. Heintz extrapolated contradiction between using a the map supported its assertion tha the from the available data that the Yountville address and being within the so-called northern extension was a part boundaries of one of these sub-districts Stags Leap District viticultural area. of Yountville. (fHearing Comment 84, p. closely corresponded to the boundaries ATF finds that the various wineries and 7). ATF contacted the SCS, and was of the Stags Leap District, as proposed vineyards within both the proposed informed by letter dated May 16, 1988, in Notice No. 620. (Tr. Vol. I, pp. 62-64). Stags Leap District and the so-called that the boundaries were drawn based This evidence was disputed by Charles "northern extension" used various on the property lines of "cooperators," Sullivan, another wine historian, who names in geographical self-description. i.e., ranches and farms being assisted by contended that the evidence from the including Yountville and Napa. Thus, the SCS. (Requested Information 5). The 19th century was too incomplete to draw the Bureau does not find that this map was for internal filing purposes any conclusions as to boundaries. Mr. criteria is a useful means of only, and was not distributed to the Sullivan stated that for purposes of distinguishing vineyards and wineries public. In addition, the map submitted determining the validity of the within the appellation from those by Group B was a replacement for one appellation, only the history since the outside the appellation. originally drawn up during the 1950s, but 1960s was relevant. (Hearing Comment Both Group A and Group B submitted which had been lost sometime before 103). ATF finds that the evidence about various articles from the wine press and 1983. Consequently, as pointed out by the 19th century boundaries of the Napa the general press to support the the SCS, " *. it is highly unlikely that Wine Growers Association sub-districts respective boundaries proposed. Most of the current map matches the original." was inconclusive; therefore, this the articles submitted did not articulate Therefore, ATF has concluded that the evidence was not considered to be specific boundaries for the Stags Leap map is not of great evidentiary weight, significant for purposes of determining District, but merely referred to the fact and that it does not support conclusively the current boundaries of the Stags Leap that various wineries or vineyards were either Group A or Group B. District. located within the boundaries of Stags Both Group A and Group B have Group A also presented evidence to Leap. Of the articles which did mention pointed for support to an article that the effect that the vineyard owners in specific boundaries, there was no appeared in the September 1981 issue of the northern extension referred to uniformity. Vintage Maguzine. entitled "How Many themselves as being located in For example, one article implied that Stags in a Stag's Leap?" (Petition, "Yountville" rather than "Stags Leap." the Stags Leap District area extended as Exhibit 13). In describing the Stags Leap (Hearing Comment 84, p. 8; Hearing far west as the Napa River (Petition, District, the author of the article, Exhibit 10). Group A pointed to the fact Exhibit 13. Trumpetvine Wines, April Richard Paul Hinkle, defined its bounds that none of the grapes grown in the 1985, "Stags Leap Saga, Part 1I"), while "[flor the immediate sake of argument, northern extension were used in wines others implied that the Silverado Trail * * . as being Clos du Val on the south, that were labeled as "Stags Leap." (Petition, Exhibit 13, Connoisseur's the Silverado Trail on the west, an (Hearing Comment 84, p. 9). They also Guide to California Wine, Jan-Feb extension of the Yountville Cross Road pointed to the fact that one of the 1977), or perhaps an area to the west on the north (just south of Rector vineyard owners in the proposed thereof (Hearing Exhibit 12, the Napa Reservoir), and the rocky promontories extension, Mr. Jack Abruzzini, called his Register (4/17/81), "Napa Wines Take of the eastern flank of the Mayacamus vineyard "J. Abruzzini's Yountville Tasting Htonors") were the boundary. In Mountains (also called Stags Leap) to Vineyard," and considered himself as one article, a vineyard/winery owner the east." Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 41013

Group B uses this article in support of 3. Western Boundary located in the Stags' Leap area. (Petition, its contention that the northern With reference to the western Exhibit 13). boundary goes as far north as the boundary, although there was no dispute (3) A copy of a certificate of label Yountville Cross Road. (NPRM to the boundary among the participants approval (dated 8/20/82) for Pine Ridge Comment 1, p. 4, 8). Group A points to at the hearing, ATF did receive brand 1980 Merlot. The label indicates the fact that the boundaries as conflicting evidence as to its correct that part of the wine was derived from articulated by Mr. Hinkle would -location. Specifically, while Group A grapes grown in the "Stag's Leap eliminate all vineyards located west of amended its petition to move the district." The grapes came from the the Silverado Trail (Hearing Comment western boundary from the hills west of vineyards of Stags' Leap Winery. 84, p. 6) including, among others, the the Silverado Trail to the Napa River, (Petition, Exhibit 10; Requested vineyards of S. Anderson Vineyard, Pine articles were submitted which indicated Information 4). Ridge Winery, Silverado Vineyards, and that the western boundary was (4) An article in the April 1985 issue of Mondavi Winery. However, Mr. Hinde's somewhere east of the Napa River. Trumpetvine Wines, entitled "Stags article does go on to say that "[a] (Hearing Exhibit 12; Petition, Exhibit 13). Leap Saga, Part II," describes Stags' significant chunk of acreage may be This conflict was noted in the Hinkle Leap Winery as being located in the disputed when the western boundaries article previously mentioned. However, "Stags Leap area." (Petition, Exhibit 13). come up for discussion. Involved are the Group A presented evidence which Southern Boundary-Clos du Val Winery. (1) In the revised edition of Bob Disney (Silverado) vineyards * * *, Pine indicated that the Napa River was the Ridge's vines * * *, and western boundary of the Stags Leap Thompson's "The Pocket Encyclopedia Mondavi's * *." District area. (Petition, Exhibit 13). In of California Wines" (Copy. 1985), a reference is made that "most of the ATF finds that neither the Hinkle addition, Group A submitted articles which specifically included Silverado grapes (to make Clos du Val wines) article, nor any other article submitted come from winery-owned vineyards in the rulemaking record, specifically Vineyards and Mondavi Winery vineyards as part of the Stags Leap area. around the cellars at Stag's Leap ... lists boundaries identical to either (2) In the third edition of Alexis proposal. In addition, none of the (Second Amendment, pp. 3-4; Petition, Exhibit 13). ATF finds Lichine's "New Encyclopedia of Wines articles submitted provides a that the weight of the evidence supports & Spirits" (Copy. 1984), Clos du Val comprehensive, all-inclusive list of the placement of the western boundary at the Napa River, Winery is described as having "about wineries and vineyards included in the as proposed in Notice No. 620. 300 acres * * * of vineyards in the Stag's area which would correspond to the Leap and Carneros districts * *. boundaries proposed by Group A or 4. Examples of Evidence Utilized in Western Boundary-Silverado Group B. Support of Decision Vineyards, Robert Mondavi Winery. (1) Most of the articles submitted were ATF has utilized over 40 pieces of A copy of a photograph that appeared in not intended to present definitive lists of information which, taken collectively, the January 1-31, 1982 issue of The Wine the wineries and vineyards within the support the boundaries as adopted in Spectator,with the caption "Silverado Stags Leap District. Therefore, ATF does this Treasury decision. In the following Vineyard, in Napa's Stag's Leap area, not find that the fact that some paragraphs, the Bureau will provide takes form." (Petition, Exhibit 13). vineyards or wineries were not some examples of the evidence it used (2) In a review of Silverado's 1981 mentioned is evidence that those in establishing the boundaries of the Cabernet, the California Grapevine vineyards or wineries are not within the Stags Leap District viticultural area. (April-May 1984) noted that the "grapes Stags Leap District. Some of the smaller Northern Boundary--S. Anderson were estate-grown in the Stag's Leap vineyards located in the center of the Vineyard. (1) A copy of an itinerary area." (Second Amendment, p. 5). proposed Stags Leap District were not (dated 10/13/83) for a wine touring (3) In an article appearing in the San mentioned in any of the articles business, Wine Adventures, Inc., which FranciscoExaminer (3/9/83), writer submitted. Instead, ATF has found the refers to S. Anderson Vineyard as being Harvey Steiman notes that "Robert press articles useful in setting the located in the Stags Leap wine region. Mondavi has vineyards here (Stag's parameters of the boundaries of the (Hearing Comment 47; Requested Leap District)." (Petition, Exhibit 13). Stags Leap District. Information 2). (4) An article in the April 1985 issue of (2) An article, Trumpetvine Wines (previously With reference to the disputed entitled "(Sinskey) Winery Cleared Over Objections" mentioned), includes the vineyards of northern boundary, it should be noted (Napa Register, 2/5/87), includes S. Robert Mondavi, east of the Napa River that Group A did not submit any articles Anderson Vineyard on a map of the and west of the Silverado Trail, as being which specifically placed the northern "Stag's Leap Area." (NPRM Comment 1, included in the "Stags Leap area." boundary at the hills, as proposed in Exhibit E). (Petition, Exhibit 13). Notice No. 620. However, Group B (North) Eastern Boundary-Shafer CentralArea-Pine Ridge Winery, submitted one article which specifically Winery, Stags'Leap Winery. (1) Copies Steltzner Vineyards, Stag'sLeap Wine included S. Anderson Vineyard on a of certificates of label approval for Cellars, Nathan Fay Vineyards. (1) In map of the "Stag's Leap Area." (NPRM Shafer brand 1978 Cabernet Sauvignon the September 1981 issue of the Comment 1, Exhibit E). In addition, and 1980 Zinfandel (dated 5/20/80 and Alabama Wine Guide (Vol. 1, No. 4), Group B submitted a copy of a 1983 3/5/82, respectively). The labels indicate Pine Ridge Winery is described as being itinerary for a wine touring business, that the "grapes were grown in the "located in the Stag's Leap district of the Wine Adventures, Inc., which-refers to Stag's Leap area of the Napa Valley." Napa Valley." (Hearing Exhibit 12). S. Anderson Vineyard as being located The grapes were grown in Shafer's (2) In an article that appeared in the in the Stag's Leap region. (Hearing vineyards. (Petition, Exhibit 10; June 1, 1983 edition of the San Francisco Comment 47; Requested Information 2). Requested Information 4). Chronicle, entitled "Cabernets of Stag's Thus, ATF finds that the weight of the (2) An article in the April-May 1984 Leap," writer Anthony Dias Blue evidence supported the northern issue of Friends of Wine (page 35) which mentions some of the wineries in the addition proposed by Group B. describes Shafer Vineyards as being "Stags Leap district" including Pine 4014 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

Ridge and Stag's Leap Wine Cellars. encompassed by the Group B proposal is rulemaking proceeding which Reference is also made to the vineyards characterized by geographical features conclusively demonstrated a difference of Richard Steltzner as being located in which are more similar to the Napa between the area north and south of the the Stags Leap area. (Petition, Exhibit Valley floor than to their proposed area. hills. 13). On the other hand, Group B maintains (3) In the third edition (revised) of that there are no significant differences 2. Climate-Temperature "The Connoisseurs' Handbook of in topography or climate between the In their Second Amendment, Group A California Wines" by Charles E. Olken, area proposed in Notice No. 620 and the included a weather study of the Earl G. Singer and Norman S. Roby northern extension area. Group B proposed viticultural area (as specified (Copy. 1984), Stag's Leap is described as presented evidence that the soils in the in Notice No. 620), prepared by Weather being east of Yountville and including northern extension were the same as the Network, Inc. Weather data was Stag's Leap Wine Cellars. (Petition, soils in the proposed area. and Exhibit 13). obtained from thermographs (4) Point of sale literature for St. 1. Topography automatic weather stations located both Andrew's Vineyard brand 1981 In their initial petition, Group A inside and outside (e.g., approximately Cabernet Sauvignon which indicates submitted evidence that the proposed Y2 mile west of) the proposed that part of the wine was derived from Stags Leap (District) viticultural area viticultural area. As noted in the report grapes grown in the "Stag's Leap area in had a distinct microclimate, resulting (Second Amendment, p. 34): the Napa Valley." The grapes were from the orographic configuration of the * * * the daily maximum and minimum grown in Richard Steltzner's vineyards. area. They contended that the area, temperatures recorded by the stations in (Petition, Exhibit 11; Requested surrounded on three sides by hills or Stags Leap District were generally several Information 1). mountains, was configured like a funnel, degrees higher than those recorded by the (5) A copy of a certificate of label which accentuated the inflow of cool air weather station to the west of the Naps River approval (dated 3/15/82) for San from San Pablo Bay, which is located and near the center of the Valley floor. On Francisco Symphony brand 1979 south of the proposed area. (Petition, pp. some days the differences between the two Cabernet Sauvignon which indicates 38-39). As stated in the weather report stations were over ten degrees. "Stag's Leap District" as the origin of the of Irving P. Krick Associates, Inc. However, Weather Network. wine. The label states that the grapes (Petition. p. 39): Inc. did not set up a weather station in the came from the vineyards of Richard The wide end of the funnel faces south to Steltzner. proposed northern extension area. receive the bay breeze and the frequent fogs Consequently, there is no data available (6) A copy of a certificate of label and low clouds which accompany it. These approval (dated 10/30/80) for Berkeley breezes are then guided into the area by its from that area. Moreover, the petitioners Wine Cellars brand 1978 Cabernet unique topography, including the mountains had conceded that actual maximum Sauvignon which indicates the "Stag's to the east of the Silverado Trail and the temperature values were not Leap Region of Napa Valley" as the series of contiguous hills to the west of the significantly different from those in origin of the wine. The grapes came, in Trail, which serve as the two sides of the nearby areas. (Petition, p. 40). In the part, from the vineyards of Nathan Fay. funnel. aforementioned Krick report, it was (Petition, Exhibit 11; Requested The Krick report goes on to state that stated that the funnel effect did not Information 1). the topography of the area also controls cause degree day values as currently (7) A copy of a certificate of label the movement of air out of the area, calculated to vary appreciably between approval (dated 6/1/84) for Bay Cellars "[slpecifically, the air exits to the the Stags Leap area and the adjacent brand 1982 Clarion red wine. The label mountain elevations to the north or, Napa Valley areas, and "for this reason indicates that the wine was produced, in * * * to the main valley floor through it would be misleading to use only part, from grapes grown in the "Stag's the narrow passes at the north of Stags degree-days as a criteria for evaluating Leap region." The grapes came from Leap." (Petition, p. 39). the microclimate of the various Nathan Fay's vineyards. (Petition, However, with the subsequent vineyards within short distances of Exhibit 11; Requested Information 1). extension of the western boundary from Stags Leap." (Petition, p. 40). After consideration of all of the the hills west of the Silverado Trail to At the public hearing, Mr. Donald evidence presented, ATF has concluded the Napa River (Second Amendment), as Schukraft, a certified consulting that there is sufficient evidence to proposed in Notice No. 620, ATF does meteorologist, commented that the hills substantiate that the additional area not believe that the topography of the along the northern boundary of the proposed by Group B has been and is viticultural area is a significant proposed Stags Leap area "provide currently considered within the Stags geographical feature in determining a changes in the wind-flow pattern that Leap District by the general public. western boundary. As meteorologist consequently produce changes in the Consequently, ATF finds that the area Donald Schukraft (Weather Network, temperatures and humidity in the encompassed within the boundaries Inc.) stated at the public hearing in vineyards to the north and south of the proposed by Group B accurately reflects discussing the extended (western) area, hills. These changes * * * are not found the grape growing region known as "[t/here is no funnel effect here. This at the Yountville Cross Road." (Tr. Vol. Stags Leap District. area is open to the Valley." (Tr. Vol. I, p. I, p. 118). For example, Mr. Sclhukraft 125). asserted that on a day when the C. GeographicalFeatures wind- Similarly, ATF does not believe that flow is from the south, the air would Group A contends that their proposed topography is a significant geographic flow around the northern hills (south of area is distinguished from surrounding feature in determining the northern the Yountville Cross Road) and exit the areas by geographical features. They boundary of the Stags Leap District area south of the northern hills, resulting maintain that the topography, climate, viticultural area. Although the in temperatures that are lower and and soils which characterize their petitioners had noted that the northern humidity that is higher than the area proposed area combine to produce ring of hills, just south of the Yountville north of the hills. However, Mr. unique growing conditions. Moreover, Cross Road, defined part of the "funnel," Schukraft presented no climatological they contend that the additional area no evidence was submitted in the data to support those conclusions. Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 4015

ATF received conflicting reports from 3. Cimate-Precipitation/Moisture alluvial fans, flood plains, and low vineyard owners both within the Based on data presented in the USDA terraces. As described in the soil survey, proposed area and within the northern SCS Soil Survey of Napa County, they are formed in alluvium derived extension as to the effects of the wind California (August 1978), average from rhyolite and basic igneous rock. In on their respective grape vines. annual precipitation within the Stags the following paragraphs, the Bureau Mr. Richard Chambers, who owns a Leap District is 25 to 30 inches. will discuss the reasons why it vineyard in the northern extension, Similar amounts of rainfall can be concluded that the soils of the Stags stated at the public hearing that the area expected in the areas west and south of Leap District form the best geographical in the northern extension (south of the the viticultural area, while average basis for distinguishing the District from Yountville Cross Road) also receives the rainfall north and east of the viticultural the areas which surround it. breezes from the San Pablo Bay. (Tr. area increases to between 30 and 35 a. Eastern Boundary.The Stags Leap Vol. III, p. 25). To support this inches. ATF notes that there is no mountain range is located just east of contention, he provided photographs of conclusive evidence that the area the Stags Leap District. Consequently, his vineyard and other vineyards in the between the Yountville Cross Road and this area consists mainly of Rock northern extension (S. Anderson the northern hills has different outcrop and, to a lesser degree, the Vineyard and Missimer Vineyard) precipitation patterns from the proposed Hambright soil series. The SCS soil which depicted grape vines bent over, viticultural area. survey notes that these types of soils are growing toward the north, away from Professor Elliott-Fisk, an expert not used for growing wine grapes, either the south wind. On the other hand, in witness for Group A, concluded that the because they are not suitable or there is the area around Yountville (west of the types of plants and density of forests no water available for irrigation. (SCS Napa River), Mr. Chambers noted only and woodlands on the ridges and hills of Soil Survey, August 1978, pp. 40-43). neutral vine growth. (Hearing Exhibit the proposed Stags Leap District b. Southern Boundary.The dominant 27). As to how far north the strong wind indicate the entrapment of moist, marine soils south of the viticultural area extended, Mr. Chambers stated that "it air within the area. She also stated that include the Hambright series, the Haire undoubtedly crosses the Yountville with the exception of the oak-madrone series, the Yolo series, and the Cole Cross Road," before dissipating in the woodland, other types of woodlands series. These four soil series converge area further up State Lane. (Tr. Vol. III, found within the proposed Stags Leap just south of the viticultural area and, in p. 26). District, such as the oak forest, madrone effect, "pinch" it off. In addition, in its However, Group A submitted forest, and conifer-hardwood forest, do post-hearing comment, Group A noted evidence to the contrary. In their post- not continue to the north and south of that there is a confluence of three hearing brief (Hearing Comment 84, the proposed district. (Hearing Comment drainage systems just south of the Exhibit P), Mr. John Stuart of Silverado 84, Exhibit M. p. 2). This evidence was viticultural area-the Napa River, Dry Vineyards stated that in Silverado's disputed by Mrs. Dorothy Barboza, a Creek, and Hopper Creek. (Hearing vineyards in Yountville, cane growth is vineyard owner in the northern Comment 84, Exhibit U). also oriented toward the north, with extension, who sent photographs of c. Western Boundary. In Group A's subsequent wind damage. Mr. Robert conifer trees in the northern extension. initial petition, they submitted a report Egan submitted a post-hearing comment (Post Hearing Comment Period 3). The on soils from viticultural consultant (Hearing Comment 85) which included Bureau has determined that there is Richard Nagoaka. Mr. Nagoaka stated photographs of Mr. Chambers' vineyard insufficient evidence on this issue to that the dominant soils west of the Napa and Mr. Anderson's vineyard indicating support a finding that the types of River include the Yolo series, the Cole that the wind had little or no effect on vegetation in the northern extension series, and the Clear Lake Series. the vines or canes in either vineyard. differ significantly from the types of (Petition, p. 48). Mr. Nagoaka also stated Mr. Egan provided photographs of his vegetation found in the proposed Stags that: own vineyard, located just south of the Leap District. The soils to the east of the (Napa) river (the northern hills, and suggested that the 4. Soil-General Stags Leap side) were deposited by alluvial vines tended to lean to the north as a forces from parent materials from the Vaca result of the wind. Based on the evidence submitted in Range on the eastern rim of the Napa Valley. ATF finds that the evidence presented this rulemaking procedure, ATF has By contrast, the soils to the west of the Napa as to the effect of the wind within the concluded that the soil (including the River were deposited from parent materials proposed viticultural area is too subsoil) is the primary geographical from the Mayacamus Range on the western inconclusive to support a finding that feature that distinguishes Stags Leap rim of the valley. These two ranges not only the northern hills provide a significant District from the surrounding areas. appear different, but are composed of barrier to the winds from the south, with According to the SCS soil survey, profoundly different materials. (Petition, p. resulting differences in temperature. there are 31 soil series within Napa 45). ATF notes that the evidence presented County. Approximately 45% of these soil According to Mr. Nagoaka, the Vaca at the hearing indicated that there was series are present within the Stags Leap mountain range was formed about ten no "funnel effect" from the area west of District, as adopted by this Treasury million years ago through volcanic the hills west of the Silverado Trail to decision. Certain of these soil series, activity. In contrast, the Mayacamus the Napa River. ATF does not believe such as Millsholm, Perkins, and Kidd, mountain range formed about 30 million that the "funnel effect" represents a are found within the viticultural area but years ago, and is composed of fines and significant geographical feature of the not in the surrounding areas. However, sedimentary materials. Thus, as Mr. entire viticultural area as proposed by within the Stags Leap District area, the Nagoaka pointed out, soils west of the Group A. Therefore, ATF does not Bale soil series predominates. Bale soils Napa River "tend to be deeper, more believe that climate, with regard to are also found to the north of the fertile and of greater water-holding temperature, is a significant viticultural area, but not in the capacity" than those east of the Napa distinguishing geographical feature in surrounding areas to the east, south, or River. (Petition, p. 46). Because of the determining the boundaries of the Stags west. The SCS describes Bale soils as greater water-holding capacity, soils Leap District viticultural area. being somewhat poorly drained on west of the Napa River do not require 4016 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations late irrigation. Mr. Nagoaka compared of the proposed viticultural area. (Tr. soils of the Stags Leap District the water-holding capacity of the Cole Vol. 1, p. 98; Hearing Exhibit 6). (including the northern extension), are silt loam soils (west of the Napa River) In support of the above conclusions, consistent throughout the properties with the Bale clay loam soils east of the Professor Elliott-Fisk stated that stretching from a line following the Napa River. He found that the Bale soils (subsequent to the hearing) she had small drainage channel approximately contained 0.06-0.11 inches of available sampled and analyzed soils from both parallel to and immediately north of the water per inch of soil, while the Cole within and outside of the proposed Yountville Cross Road, west of the soils contained 0.16-0.21 inches of water viticultural area. The samples within the Silverado Trail, south to a point near the per inch of soil, approximately double proposed viticultural area were taken Chimney Rock Golf Course. He found the water-holding capacity. Mr. from the Egan property (just south of the that: Nagoaka concluded that northern hills), and the Silverado The distinctive soil aspect of the Proposed "[vjiticulturally, the management of Vineyards property (just inside the Stags Leap District, including the Northern vineyards west and east of the river is proposed western boundary, east of the Extension, is a catena or topographic profoundly influenced by the different Napa River). Samples were also taken sequence of soils beginning in the east with a soil types and their characteristics." from the Simonson property in the terrace against the base of the Stags Leap (Petition. p. 50). northern extension (just north of the Ridge at an elevation of approximately 200 d. NorthernBoundwy. The public proposed northern boundary, and south feet, continuing with an alluvial fan on which hearing and subsequent comments of the Yountville Cross Road), and from soils of the Bale series occur, then to the produced much conflicting evidence as another Egan property (just north of the lower end where the fan buries deposits of the Napa River in the west. to classification of the soils in the Yountville Cross Road, and west of These distinctive State Lane), and from two sites just combinations of soils occur several places in proposed northern extension. Based the Stags Leap District from immediately upon the following evidence, however, south of the proposed southern north of the Yountville Cross Road to near ATF has concluded that the soils in the boundary of Stags Leap District (Shafer the Chimney Rock Golf Course. (Hearing northern extension are more similar to Winery's Oak Knoll vineyard). Comment 101, Zinke Report, p. 1). the soils in the area proposed in Notice In her report (Hearing Comment 113), Professor Zinke stated NO. 620 than to the area to the north of Professor Elliott-Fisk noted that her that the the Yountville Cross Road. The analyses of the above-mentioned Reactor Creek (Canyon) Fan begins at a following evidence was considered by samples indicated the following: drainage ditch which is approximately ATF: (a) The soils on the properties of parallel to, and just north of the i. Elliott-Fisk Geography Report. At Simonson (located in the northern Yountville Cross Road. According to the hearing, Professor Deborah Elliott- extension), and Egan (located just north Professor Zinke: Fisk, an Assistant Professor, Department of the Yountville Cross Road), were both This is the line where the soils change from of Geography, University of California, formed on the Rector Canyon Fan; those of the Stags Leap District to the coarser Davis, testified on behalf of Group A. however, the Egan soil is "at the outer soils of the Rector Creek Fan. North of this Professor Elliott-Fisk stated, on the margin of the Rector Canyon Fan and drainage ditch the soils begin to be the outer margin of the Napa River dominated by the Rector Creek alluvial fan. basis of soil samples taken in the area (Hearing Comment 101. Zinke Report, p. 8). north of the Yountville Cross Road, that flood-plain/historic terrace." (Hearing she believed that the soils south of the Comment 113, p. 6). SCS and USGS Reports. ATF was Yountville Cross Road had been (b) The soil on the Egan property thus presented with conflicting reports incorrectly mapped as Bale clay loam on within the proposed Stags Leap District from two experts in the field as to the SCS maps. (Tr. Vol. I, p. 94-95). is on the old (former) Napa River characteristics of the soils in the Professor Elliott-Fisk conceded, channel; northern extension. Both Professors (c) The Silverado Vineyards property however, that she had not taken any soil Elliott-Fisk and Zinke acknowledged the samples from the area south of the shares soil similarities with the more presence of a Rector Canyon (Creek) central portion of the proposed Stags Yountville Cross Road. In their post- Fan, and believed that Rector Canyon Leap District, and; hearing brief, Group A summarized the soils (d) The soils on the Shafer property, were different from Stags Leap findings of Professor Elliott-Fisk, as just south of the proposed viticultural District soils. However, whereas follows: area, are on the Soda Canyon Fan. Professor Elliott-Fisk believed that the The vineyard area within (the proposed) Group A also contended that the Rector Canyon Fan begins at the Stags Leap District, which once served as the different sub-soil profiles and northern hills at the northern boundary channel of the Napa River, contains alluvial compositions "are particularly relevant of the proposed viticultural area, sub-soils derived from volcanic and Professor Zinke believed that it began sedimentary bedrock and from Napa River viticulturally because grape vines typically root in the sub-soil, not just the some 500 yards north of the hills, on the deposits. These soils have never been north side of the Yountville Cross Road. covered by fan deposits and are fine, well- topsoil." (Hearing Comment 84, p. 11). weathered and well-drained. By contrast, the ii. Zinke GeographyReport. In its The evidence submitted led ATF to sub-soils of the areas north and south of (the post-hearing comment (Hearing the conclusion that the soils and proposed) Stags Leap District are comprised Comment 101), S. Anderson Vineyard subsoils were the primary geographical of more recent deposits of the well-defined included a soils report prepared by feature that distinguished the Stags Leap Rector Canyon Fan and Soda (Canyon) Creek Professor Paul Zinke, a professor in the District from surrounding areas. In order Fan, respectively. (Hearing Comment 84, p. Department of Forestry, University of to better evaluate the conflicting expert 11). California, Berkeley. Professor Zinke evidence which had been submitted on Professor Elliott-Fisk stated that the concluded, on the basis of observations the issue of soils, ATF forwarded copies beginning of the Rector Canyon Fan he made while visiting the proposed of the reports of Professors Elliott-Fisk abutted the northern edge of the hills Stags Leap District and its surrounding and Zinke to the SCS and the United which were proposed as the northern area, a review of various soil surveys, States Geological Survey (USGS) for boundary of Stags Leap District. She soil maps and topographical maps, and their review and response. stated that the Soda Canyon Fan began soil samples taken on a second visit to By letter dated May 16, 1988, the SCS at approximately the southern boundary the proposed viticultural area, that the responded to ATF's request. (Requested Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 4017

Information 5). The SCS was unable to than to the soils north of the Yountville titled Yountville, California. The reach any definitive conclusions from Cross Road. boundaries are described in § 9.117. the evidence before it, but did address Although the USGS stated that it Professor Elliott-Fisk's assertion that the could not recommend that a solely VIII. Additional Information soils in the northern extension had been geologic, geomorphologic, or soils basis A. Miscellaneous incorrectly classified on the SCS map. be used to determine the northern The SCS included with its response an boundary of the district, the Bureau ATF does not want to give the internal memorandum, dated May 5, would note that viticultural area impression that, by approving "Stags 1988, which stated that almost all soil boundaries are not based solely on Leap District" as a viticultural area, it is delineations contain small areas of other geographical features. approving or endorsing the quality of the soils, often quite contrasting soils, which On the basis of geographical criteria, wine from this area. ATF is approving are called "inclusions." The letter stated ATF finds that the area within the this area as being distinct, but not better that "it is important to note that the proposed Stags Leap District and the than other areas. By approving this area, sample sites in her (Professor Elliott- area within the northern extension are ATF will allow wine producers to claim Fisk's) report do not necessarily confirm not distinguishable from one another. a distinction on labels and in that Bale soils similar to those described The evidence indicates that the climate, advertisements as to the origin of the south of the 'Rector Canyon Fan' line do soil, precipitation, etc. within the area grapes. Any commercial advantage can not exist within the northern extension proposed by Group A, and the area only come from consumer acceptance of proposed by Zinke." within the northern extension proposed "Stags Leap District" wines. By letter dated June 9, 1988, the USGS by Group B, are virtually the same. submitted its review of the data. Although there are differences, ATF B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Requested Information 7). The letter finds that there is insufficient evidence The provisions of the Regulatory noted that the reviewer was merely to indicate that these differences Flexibility Act relating to a final analyzing the reports, and did not have distinguish the proposed areas from one regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. the advantage of a field review, detailed another. 604) are not applicable to this final rule photographic review, or review of the ATF finds that the weight of the because it will not have a significant data collected by either consultant. The evidence supports the SCS map's economic impact on a substantial reviewer concluded that there were classification of the soils in the northern number of small entities. The final rule reasonable arguments and data to extension as being predominantly Bale will not impose, or otherwise cause, a support either position of the northern clay loam. Further, ATF finds that the significant increase in the reporting, boundary. evidence supports the conclusion of the recordkeeping, The USGS reviewer noted the USGS that the soils within the northern or other compliance heterogeneity of soil types within the extension are more similar to the soils burdens on a substantial number of small proposed Stags Leap District. (As found in the proposed Stags Leap entities. previously mentioned, of the 31 soil District than to the soils found north of Accordingly, it is hereby certified series present within Napa County, the Yountville Cross Road. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 3 of the approximately 45% of these are found in ATF concludes, based on the evidence, Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. the viticultural area.) Thus, because of that the northern extension area is 605(b)), that this final rule will not have the diversity of soil types, the USGS distinguished by viticultural features a significant economic impact on a believed that it was important to from the remaining surrounding areas. substantial number of small entities. ascertain whether the soils in the In summation, ATF finds that the C. Executive Order 12291 northern extension were similar to those boundaries proposed by Group B satisfy in the proposed viticultural area, or the criteria of 27 CFR 4.25a(e)(2)(iii) by In compliance with Executive Order uniquely different. encompassing an area that possesses 12291, the Bureau has determined that In addition, the USGS believed it generally homogeneous viticultural this regulation is not a major rule since important to determine whether the soils features different from surrounding it will not result in: in the northern extension were more like areas which are distinguished by (a) An annual effect on the economy the Rector Canyon (Fan) deposits and geographical features. of $100 million or more; soils than the Stags Leap District soils since, as previously noted, both VI. Final Rule-Boundary Modifications (b) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual Professors Elliott-Fisk and Zinke Based on the evidence in the industries, Federal, State, or local government believed that Rector Canyon soils were rulemaking record, with the exception of agencies, or geographical different from Stags Leap District soils. the northern boundary, ATF is adopting regions; or The USGS concluded that, in their the boundaries of the Stags Leap District (c) Significant adverse effects on opinion, there was insufficient data viticultural area as proposed in Notice competition, employment, investment, available to argue that the soils in the No. 620. ATF finds that the evidence productivity, innovation, or on the northern extension (south of the submitted by Group B satisfies the ability of United States-based Yountville Cross Road) are significantly criteria specified in § 4.25a(d)(2) of the enterprises to compete with foreign- different from those within the proposed regulations, and the northern boundary based enterprises in domestic or export Stags Leap District. Further, the USGS of the Stags Leap District viticultural markets. opined that a more detailed study could area as proposed in Notice No. 620 is, D. Paperwork Reduction Act conclude that the soils in the northern therefore, modified to extend to the extension are transitional to both the Yountville Cross Road. The provisions of the Paperwork Rector Canyon Fan and the Stags Leap Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511, VII. Boundaries 44 materials. In any event, based on the of the Area U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing available data, the USGS concluded that The boundaries of the Stags Leap regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not the soils in the northern extension District viticultural area may be found apply to this final rule because no appear to be more similar to the soils on one United States Geological Survey requirement to collect information is within the proposed viticultural area (U.S.G.S.) map of the 7.5 minute series, imposed. 4018 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 17 / Friday, January 27, 1989 / Rules and Regulations

E. Disclosure (2) Then southwest in a straight line. officials to receive the appropriate approximately 900 feet, to the main differential. The revisions also reflect A copy of the petition (and channel of the Napa River. changes in titles and positions within amendments), the hearing transcript and (3) Then following the main branch of the Commission. exhibits, and the comments received are the Napa River (not the southern branch EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 1989. available for inspection during normal by the levee) in a northwesterly then business hours at the following location: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Room, Room 4412. northerly direction, until it intersects the ATF Reading medium-duty road (Grant Bdy) in T7N/ Mr. Michael Rhode, Jr., Assistant to the Disclosure Branch, 1200 Pennsylvania R4W, known locally as the Yountville Chairman and Secretary, Panama Canal Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Cross Road. Commission, 2000 L Street NW., F.Drafting Information (4) Then northeast along the Washington, DC 20036-4996 (Telephone: Yountville Cross Road until it intersects 202-634-6441) or Mr. John L. Haines, Jr., The principal author of this document General Counsel, Panama Canal is James P. Ficaretta, Wine and Beer the medium-duty road, the Silverado Trail. Commission, APO Miami 34011-5000 Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, (Telephone in Balboa Heights, Republic and Firearms. (5) Then north along the Silverado Trail approximately 590 feet to a gully of Panama: 011-507-52-7511). List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 entering the Silverado Trail from the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issuance Administrative practice and east. of a notice of proposed rulemaking procedure, Consumer protection, (6) Then northeast along the center under 5 U.S.C. 553 is not necessary Viticultural areas, and Wine. line of that gully, approximately 800 feet, because this final rule pertains only to until it intersects the 400 foor contour personnel of agencies covered by these IX. Authority and Issuance line in Section 30 of T7N/R4W. regulations. Section 1217 of the Panama Par. 1. The authority citation for 27 (7) Then in a generally southeast Canal Act of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3657), CFR Part 9 continues to read as follows: direction, following the 400 foot contour authorizes the head of the Panama Canal Commission to pay an overseas Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. line through Sections 29, 32, 33, 4, and 3, until it intersects the intermittent stream recruitment of retention differential to PART 9-AMERICAN VICULTURAL in the southwest corner of Section 3 in eligible employees. In addition to the AREAS TON/R4W. statutory requirements of the Act, (8) Then in a generally southwest agency regulations published at 35 CFR Par. 2. The table of sections in 27 CFR direction along that intermittent stream 251.31 (tropical differential) and 35 CFR Part 9, Subpart C, is amended to add the to the beginning point, at the 251.32 (Panama Area differential) heading of § 9.117 to read as follows: intersection with the Silverado Trail. contain requirements governing Subpart C-Approved American Viticultural Signed: December 20, 1988. eligibility for the differentials. Bureau Areas Stephen E.Higgins, directors and heads of independent units of the Panama Canal Commission, Director. Sec. however, are not covered by either the Approved: January 6,1989. statute or the regulations due to the 9.117 Stags Leap District. John P. Simpson, exclusionary language of 35 CFR Deputy Assistant Secretary(Regulatory, 253.8(d). The final rule reflects the Par. 3. Subpart C is amended by Trade and TariffEnforcement). Commission's desire that these adding § 9.117 to read as follows: [FR Doc. 89-1841 Filed 1-26--89; 8:45 am] Commission officials receive the BILLING CODE 4810-31-M appropriate differential as do other Subpart C-Approved American Commission employees. Viticultural Areas The final rule revises § 253.8(d) to DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE apply the provisions of 22 U.SC. 3657, 35 CFR 251.31 and 251.32, except for § 9.117 Stags Leap District. Department of the Army §§ 251.31(b)(4) and 251.32(b)(2) to (a) Name. The name of the viticultural bureau directors and heads of area described in this section is "Stags 35 CFR Part 253 independent units. Accordingly, the Leap District." Regulations of the Secretary of the bureau directors and heads of (b) Approved map. The appropriate independent units may receive the determining the boundaries of Army (Panama Canal Employment map for System); Employment Policy differential subject to the same the Stags Leap District viticultural area eligibility requirements as other is one U.S.G.S. topographic map in the AGENCY: Department of the Army, Commission employees, except that 7.5 minute series, scaled 1:24000, titled Defense. these officials will not be subject to the "Yountville, Calif.," 1951 (photorevised ACTION: Final rule. provisions of § § 251.31(b)(4) and 1968). 251.32(b)(2), which limit payment of the (c) Boundaries.The Stags Leap SUMMARY: The final rule removes diffferential to an amount which, when District viticultural area is located in language in § 253.8 of title 35, Code of combined with basic compensation, Napa County, California, within the Federal Regulations, which had does not exceed the current rate of step Napa Valley viticultural area. The previously excluded bureau directors 5, GS-17 of the General Schedule set out boundaries are as follows: and heads of independent units of the in 5 U.S.C. 5332(a). In other words, (1) Commencing at the intersection of Panama Canal Commission from bureau directors and heads of the intermittent stream (drainage creek) eligibility for the overseas recruitment independent units will not be subject to with the Silverado Trail at the 60 foot or retention differential authorized by the step 5, GA-17 limitation, but rather, contour line in T6N/R4W, section 1217 of the Panama Canal Act of will receive, in addition to basic approximately 7 miles north of the city 1979. The removal of this exclusionary compensation, the appropriate of Napa. language allows these Commission differential regardless of the amount of