Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 17 Friday, January 27, 1989 ...appellation, Stag's Leap Wine Cellars and Stags' Leap Winery. On June 26, 1986, Group A submitted a second amendment and

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

by regulations promulgated undersection 412(i)(2) of the act; or

(2) May be otherwise adulterated ormisbranded.

(b) Method of notification. Thenotification made pursuant to§ 107.240(a) shall be made, by telephone.to the Director of the appropriate Foodand Drug Administration district officespecified in § 5.115 of this chapter. Afternormal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30p.m.), FDA's emergency number, 202-857-8400, shall be used. Themanufacturer shall send writtenconfirmation of the notification to theDivision of Regulatory Guidance (HFF-310), Center for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition, Food and DrugAdministration, 200 C St. SW.,Washington, DC 20204, and to theappropriate Food and DrugAdministration district office specifiedin § 5.115 of this chapter.

(c) Reports about an infant formularecall--(1) Telephone report. When adetermination is made that an infantformula is to be recalled, the recallingfirm shall telephone within 24 hours theappropriate Food and DrugAdministration district office listed in§ 5.115 of this chapter and shall providerelevant information about the infantformula that is to be recalled.

(2) Initial written report. Within 14days after the recall has begun, therecalling firm shall provide a writtenreport to the appropriate Food and DrugAdministration district office. The reportshall contain relevant information,including the following cumulativeinformation concerning the infantformula that is being recalled:

(i) Number of consignees notified ofthe recall, and date and method ofnotification, including, for a recallpursuant to § 107.200 information aboutthe notice provided for retail displayand the request for its display.

(ii) Number of consignees respondingto the recall communication andquantity of recalled infant formula onhand at the time it was received.

(iii) Quantity of recalled infantformula returned or corrected by eachconsignee contacted and the quantity ofrecalled infant formula accounted for.

(iv) Number and results ofeffectiveness checks that were made.

(v) Estimated timeframes forcompletion of the recall.

(3) Status reports. The recalling firmshall submit to the appropriate Food andDrug Administration district office awritten status report on the recall atleast every 14 days until the recall isterminated. The status report shalldescribe the steps taken by the recallingfirm to carry out the recall since the lastrepnrt and the results of these steps.

§ 107.250 Termination of an Infant formularecall.

The recalling firm may submit arecommendation for termination of therecall to the appropriate Food and DrugAdministration district office listed in§ 5.115 of this chapter for transmittal tothe Division of Regulatory Guidance,Center for Food Safety and AppliedNutrition, for action. Any suchrecommendation shall containinformation supporting a conclusion thatthe recall strategy has been effective.The agency will respond within 15 daysof receipt by the Division of RegulatoryGuidance, Center for Food Safety andApplied Nutrition, of the request fortermination. The recalling firm shallcontinue to implement the recallstrategy until it receives final writtennotification from the agency that therecall has been terminated. The agencywill send such a notification unless ithas information, from FDA's own auditsor from other sources, demonstratingthat the recall has not been effective.The agency may conclude that a recallhas not been effective if:

(a) The recalling firm's distributorshave failed to retrieve the recalledinfant formula; or

(b) Stocks of the recalled infantformula remain in distribution channelsthat are not in direct control of therecalling firm.

§ 107.260 Revision of an Infant formularecall.

If after a review of the recalling firm'srecall strategy or periodic reports orother monitoring of the recall, the Foodand Drug Administration concludes thatthe actions of the recalling firm aredeficient, the agency shall notify therecalling firm of any serious deficiency.The agency may require the firm to:

(a) Change the extent of the recall, ifthe agency concludes on the basis ofavailable data that the depth of therecall is not adequate in light of the riskto human health presented by the infantformula.

(b) Carry out additional effectivenesschecks, if the agency's audits, or otherinformation, demonstrate that the recallhas not been effective.

(c) Issue additional notifications to thefirm's direct accounts, if the agency'saudits, or other information demonstratethat the original notifications were notreceived, or were disregarded in asignificant number of cases.

§ 107.270 Compliance with this subparLA recalling firm may satisfy the

requirements of this subpart by anymeans reasonable calculated to meet theobligations set forth in this Subpart E.The recall guidelines in Subpart C of

Part 7 of this chapter specify proceduresthat may be useful to a recalling firm indetermining how to comply with theseregulations.

§ 107.280 Records retention.Each manufacturer of an infant

formula shall make and retain suchrecords respecting the distribution of theinfant formula through anyestablishment owned or operated bysuch manufacturer as may be necessaryto effect and monitor recalls of theformula. Such records shall be retainedfor at least I year after the expiration ofthe shelf life of the infant formula.

(Collection of information requirements inthis section were approved by the Office ofManagement and Budget under OMB controlnumber 0910-0188.)

Dated: December 22, 1988.Frank E. Young,Commissioner of Food and Drugs.[FR Doc. 89-1719 Filed 1-26-89; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 4160-01

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[T.D. ATF-281; Ref: Notice Nos. 620,644,6471

Stags Leap District Viticultural Area

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobaccoand Firearms (ATF), Department of theTreasury.

ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes aviticultural area in Napa County,California, to be known as "Stags LeapDistrict." The northern boundary alonehas been modified from that originallyproposed, to the Yountville Cross Road.The establishment of viticultural areasand the subsequent use of viticulturalarea names as appellations of origin inwine labeling and advertising will helpconsumers better identify the wines theymay purchase, and will helpwinemakers distinguish their productsfrom wines made in other areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1989.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:James P. Ficaretta, Wine and BeerBranch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco andFirearms, Ariel Rios Federal Building,1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,Washington, DC 20226 (202-566-7626).

4009


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. BackgroundA. History

On August 23, 1978, ATF publishedTreasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR 37672,54624) revising regulations in 27 CFRPart 4. These regulations allow theestablishment of definite viticulturalareas. The regulations also allow thename of an approved viticultural area tobe used as an appellation of origin onwine labels and in wine advertisements.

On October 2, 1979, ATF publishedTreasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR 56692)which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR,providing for the listing of approvedAmerican viticultural areas, the namesof which may be used as appellations oforigin.B. Regulatory Criteria

Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27, CFR,defines an American viticultural area asa delimited grape-growing regiondistinguishable by geographicalfeatures, the boundaries of which havebeen delineated in Subpart C of Part 9.Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines theprocedure for proposing an Americanviticultural area. The petition shouldinclude-

(a) Evidence that the name of theproposed viticultural area is locallyand/or nationally known as referring tothe area specified in the petition;

(b) Historical or current evidence thatthe boundaries of the viticultural areaare as specified in the petition;

(c) Evidence relating to thegeographical characteristics (climate,soil, elevation, physical features, etc.)which distinguish the viticulturalfeatures of the proposed area fromsurrounding areas:

(d) A description of the specificboundaries of the viticultural area,based on features which can be foundon United States Geological Survey(U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicablescale; and

(e) A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S.map(s) with the boundaries prominentlymarked.It. General Description-Final Rule

The Stags Leap District viticulturalarea is located east of the city ofYountville and approximately sevenmiles north of the city of Napa. It isbounded on the north by the YountvilleCross Road, on the east by the StagsLeap mountain range (400 foot contourline), on the south by a drainage creekthat intersects the Silverado Trail atabout the 60 foot contour line, and onthe west by the Napa River. Thisviticultural area consists ofapproximately 2,700 acres, includes ninebonded wineries and approximately

1,350 acres of grapes, and is entirelywithin the Napa Valley viticultural area.

Ill. Rulemaking ProceedingA. Petition

On August 22, 1985, the Stags LeapAppellation Committee (hereinafterreferred to as Group A), petitioned ATFfor establishment of a viticultural areain Napa Valley, California, to be knownas "Stags Leap." The area proposed bythe petitioners consisted ofapproximately 2,200 acres (includingapproximately 1,100 acres of vineyards),situated east of the city of Yountville,and five to eight miles north of the Cityof Napa. The proposed area wassurrounded by hills to the north, east,and west, and was configured like afunnel.

Group A then submitted anamendment to its petition, datedDecember 18, 1985 (hereinafter referredto as the First Amendment) andrequested, among other things, that thename of the proposed viticultural areabe changed from "Stags Leap" to "StagsLeap District." This was done in order tounderscore further the differencebetween the viticultural areadesignation and the names of twowineries within the proposedappellation, Stag's Leap Wine Cellarsand Stags' Leap Winery.

On June 26, 1986, Group A submitted asecond amendment and supplement toits original petition (hereinafter referredto as the Second Amendment). TheSecond Amendment requested arevision of the northern and westernboundaries of the proposed Stags LeapDistrict. Attached to the SecondAmendment was a research documentprepared by Silverado Vineyards, insupport of Group A's contention that theNapa River, rather than the peaks of thehills west of the Silverado Trail, was theappropriate western boundary for theproposed viticultural area, and the ringof hills to the north was a moreappropriate northern boundary. Therevision of the northern and westernboundaries added approximately 350acres to the proposed viticultural area,for a total size of approximately 2,550acres. Included within the extendedboundaries were previously excludedvineyards owned by, among others,Silverado Vineyards and MondaviWinery.

B. Notice

In response to the SecondAmendment, ATF published Notice No.620 in the Federal Register on February11, 1987 (52 FR 4350), proposingestablishment of the Stags Leap Districtviticultural area. The notice detailed the

boundaries as proposed in the SecondAmendment, and requested comments.Written comments were to be receivedon or before April 13, 1987.

C. Comments

ATF received two comments inresponse to the notice of proposedrulemaking. One comment in particular,dated April 10, 1987. was submitted byMr. Stanley Anderson of S. AndersonVineyard. Mr. Anderson, who owns awinery and vineyards located just northof the proposed northern boundary,requested that the northern boundary beextended approximately 500 yards. Hesuggested that the Yountville CrossRoad would be a more appropriateboundary than the peaks of hills asproposed in Notice No. 620. Theproposed revision would add 150 acresto the proposed Stags Leap District, for atotal size of approximately 2,700 acres.With the exception of the northernboundary, Mr. Anderson supported theother boundaries as proposed in thenotice.

Attached to Mr. Anderson's commentwere letters from several neighboringvineyard owners who are also located inthe proposed "northern extension," allof whom supported the extension of thenorthern boundary to the YountvilleCross Road. Mr. Anderson, and those ofhis neighbors who supported thenorthern extension, will hereinafter bereferred to as Group B.

D. Hearing

In consideration of the commentsreceived, ATF determined that thepublic interest would best be served byholding a public hearing on the matter.Pursuant to Notice No. 644, published onSeptember 29, 1987 (52 FR 36431), ATFheld a hearing on December 1 and 2,1987, in Yountville, California,concerning establishment of theviticultural area. ATF heard oralcomments from 32 persons. At thehearing, Mr. George Altamura (AltamuraVineyards & Winery), requested that thesouthern boundary of the proposedviticultural area be extended(approximately 2 miles) in order toinclude his vineyard and winery.

As specified in Notice No. 644, writtencomments were to be received on orbefore December 15, 1987. This date wasthen extenjd until January 15, 1988(Notice W r, 52 FR 44917; November23, 1987). In response to Notice Nos. 644and 647, the Bureau received 167comments, representing 172 signatures.ATF also received nine comments afterthe expiration of the comment period.All comments were given careful

4010


consideration in the preparation of thisfinal rule.

TV. DecisionAfter extensive consideration of the

evidence and comments presentedregarding establishment of a Stags LeapDistrict viticultural area, ATF finds thatthe evidence submitted with respect tothe boundaries proposed by Group Bsatisfies the regulatory criteria set forthin § 4.25a(e)(2) of Title 27, Code ofFederal Regulations, for theestablishment of the Stags Leap Districtviticultural area.

Although recognizing that there isevidence which would support bothGroup A and Group B in this matter,ATF finds that the greater weight ofevidence supports the Group B proposal.ATF finds that the general areaencompassed within the boundariesproposed by Group B is locally referredto as Stags Leap District. In the Bureau'sview, Group B adequately demonstratedthat their proposed area reflects thecurrent definition of Stags Leap District.

Further, ATF finds that thedistinguishing features in the areaproposed by Group A are also present inthe northern extension proposed byGroup B. Specifically, the soils in thenorthern extension are more similar tothe soils within the area originallyproposed than to the soils outside theproposed Stags Leap District. ATFbelieves that the soils (includingsubsoils) are the primary distinguishinggeographical feature of the Stags LeapDistrict.

In contrast, ATF finds that theevidence submitted in support of theproposed extension of the southernboundary did not satisfy the regulatorycriteria. Specifically, there was noevidence that the area within theproposed southern extension is locallyor nationally known as "Stags Leap(District)."

The boundaries of the viticultural areaestablished by this final rule generallycorrespond to the area initially proposedby Group B, with modifications to avoiddividing existing vineyards. The specificboundaries of the viticultural area maybe found at § 9.117.V. Evidence

The following summarizes theevidence on which this final rule isbased. As applicable, the petition,amendments, comments, and publichearing transcripts and exhibits arecross-referenced. This is indicated byparenthetical notations such as(Petition, p. * * * ), (Tr. Vol. * * *, p.* * * ), (Hearing Exhibit * ), etc. Inaddition, to distinguish betweencomments received in response to the

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)and comments received in response tothe hearing notices, comments will bereferred to as either (NPRM Comment* * * ) or (hearing Comment * *

A. Name

Both Group A and Group B submittedevidence which clearly established thatthere exists an area in Napa County,California, east of Yountville, with aviticultural history, known bothhistorically and currently as Stags LeapDistrict. (Petition, pp. 2-17; NPRMComment 1). The only dispute regardingthe name Stags Leap District concernsthe specific boundaries of theviticultural area known by that name.Accordingly, ATF finds, based on theevidence, that both Group A and GroupB satisfied the criteria of 27 CFR4.25a(e)(2)(i) concerning the name of theviticultural area.

B. Boundaries

Group A submitted evidence thathistorically, the name Stags Leap wasused solely in reference to Horace andMinnie Chase's summer manor house(Stags Leap Manor) constructed in 1890,their winery built in 1893. and the rockypromontory overlooking the area.(Petition, pp. 2-7, p. 25). For example,the petitioners submitted a copy of awine label from the Chase wineryindicating the name "Stags' Leap."(Petition, Exhibit 4). They also statedthat "when old timers talk about theboundaries of Stags Leap District, theyare more likely to be referring to the oldChase place and its immediate vicinitythan they are to the broader viticulturalarea, which did not begin to be calledStags Leap until some time in the 1970s."(Second Amendment, p. 12).

Since the early 1970's, Mr. CarlDoumani (Stags' Leap Winery) and Mr.Warren Winiarski (Stag's Leap WineCellars) have included various brandand trade names on their wine labelswhich incorporate the geographicdesignation Stags Leap. (Petition, pp. 11-12; Petition, Exhibit 10).

In a 1973 court decision involvinglitigation over the use of the name StagsLeap, the judge ruled that "to a personof ordinary intelligence * * * 'STAG'SLEAP' is a designation for a substantialarea or a range of mountains or hills."(Petition, p. 10). Thereafter, in the 1974promotional material for his winery, Mr.Winiarski noted that "Stag's Leap is aregional designation which should intime become as familiar to wine buyersas certain domaines in European wine-growing regions." (Petition, pp. 15-16;Petition, Exhibit 10). The name StagsLeap gained further prominence when,in 1976, Mr. Winiarski's 1973 Cabernet

Sauvignon took first place at a blindtasting in Paris, France. (Petition, p. 14).

While there was general agreementabout the history of Stags Leap, theissues of contention during thisrulemaking proceeding have centeredaround the northern boundary inparticular and, to a lesser degree, thesouthern and western boundaries.

1. Southern Boundary

At the public hearing, Mr. GeorgeAltamura (Altamura Vineyards &Winery) commented that the area inwhich his vineyards and winery arelocated shares many of the samegeographical features found within theproposed Stags Leap District, includingsoil series, vegetation, and air-flowpattern. Because of this, Mr. Altamuraproposed that the southern boundary ofthe viticultural area be extended,approximately two miles, to a pointwhere Soda Creek flows into the NapaRiver. (Tr. Vol. III, pp. 139-145). Mr.Altamura submitted evidence indicatingthat certain soils in the proposedsouthern extension (e.g., Haire series)were also found in the proposed StagsLeap District. (Hearing Exhibit 39;Hearing Comment 81).

In a post-hearing written comment(Hearing Comment 48), Mr. Ernie Weirof Hagafen Cellars stated that if thesouthern boundary was to be extendedto include Mr. Altamura, he would alsolike his vineyards and winery to beincluded, however, "perhaps a moreappropriate and correct southern borderwill not include either of us."

Neither Mr. Altamura nor Mr. Weirsubmitted evidence which wouldindicate that the name "Stags Leap" waslocally or nationally known as referringto the proposed southern extension.

As previously mentioned, theregulations in 27 CFR 4.25a(e)(2) outlinethe procedure for proposing anAmerican viticultural area. In particular,§ § 4.25a(e)(2) (i) and (ii) specify thatevidence must be submitted indicatingthat the name of the viticultural area islocally and/or nationally known asreferring to the area in the petition, andthat the boundaries of the viticulturalarea are as specified in the petition.Based on the information in therulemaking record, there is no evidenceas to name, either historical or current,to support an extension of the southernboundary from that proposed in NoticeNo. 620. Therefore, ATF is not extendingthe southern boundary as proposed byMr. Altamura.

2. Northern Boundary

Conflicting evidence as to thenorthern boundary was submitted in the

4011


petition, comments, and public hearingtestimony. In its initial petition, Group Anoted that there had been livelydisagreement among the wine press overthe boundaries of Stags Leap District.(Petition, p. 32). Group A and Group Bboth presented letters and declarationsfrom long-time residents of the area,which presented conflictingrecollections of the boundaries of theStags Leap District. (Petition,Declarations B and C; NPRM Comment1, Exhibits J-1 and P-i; Hearing Exhibit2; Hearing Exhibit 28). Based on theevidence presented, ATF finds thatwhile there are differences in therecollections of local residents as to theboundaries of the Stags Leap District,there is evidence to support theconclusion that the northern extension isknown locally as part of Stags LeapDistrict.

Mr. William F. Heintz, a winehistorian, testified on behalf of Group Aat the public hearing. Mr. Heintz statedthat in the 1880s, the Napa WineGrowers Association created a series ofsub-districts within the southern part ofNapa Valley, for the purpose ofgathering data. Mr. Heintz extrapolatedfrom the available data that theboundaries of one of these sub-districtsclosely corresponded to the boundariesof the Stags Leap District, as proposedin Notice No. 620. (Tr. Vol. I, pp. 62-64).This evidence was disputed by CharlesSullivan, another wine historian, whocontended that the evidence from the19th century was too incomplete to drawany conclusions as to boundaries. Mr.Sullivan stated that for purposes ofdetermining the validity of theappellation, only the history since the1960s was relevant. (Hearing Comment103). ATF finds that the evidence aboutthe 19th century boundaries of the NapaWine Growers Association sub-districtswas inconclusive; therefore, thisevidence was not considered to besignificant for purposes of determiningthe current boundaries of the Stags LeapDistrict.

Group A also presented evidence tothe effect that the vineyard owners inthe northern extension referred tothemselves as being located in"Yountville" rather than "Stags Leap."(Hearing Comment 84, p. 8; HearingExhibit 10). Group A pointed to the factthat none of the grapes grown in thenorthern extension were used in winesthat were labeled as "Stags Leap."(Hearing Comment 84, p. 9). They alsopointed to the fact that one of thevineyard owners in the proposedextension, Mr. Jack Abruzzini, called hisvineyard "J. Abruzzini's YountvilleVineyard," and considered himself as

being within the Yountville area, ratherthan the "Stags Leap District." (NPRMComment 2; Hearing Comment 29).

Group B presented evidence that theterms Yountville and Stags Leap Districtwere not mutually exclusive, and statedthat residents within the proposed StagsLeap Dsitrict and the proposed northernextension had ties to the cities of Napaand Yountville. Mrs. Dorothy Barboza, avineyard owner in the northernextension, submitted evidence thatvarious vineyards and wineries locatedwithin the boundaries of the proposedStags Leap District were listed in thetelephone book as being in Yountvilleand Napa. (Tr. Vol. III, p. 58; HearingExhibit 33). Mrs. Barboza also submittedevidence that three of the wineries inthe proposed Stags Leap District weremembers of the Yountville Chamber ofCommerce. (Hearing Exhibit 35). Inaddition, Mrs. Barboza submitted labelsfor one winery in the proposed StagsLeap District indicating Yountville as itslocation. (Hearing Exhibit 30).

Group B argued that there was nouniformity in self-description in theStags Leap District; thus, there was nocontradiction between using aYountville address and being within theStags Leap District viticultural area.ATF finds that the various wineries andvineyards within both the proposedStags Leap District and the so-called"northern extension" used variousnames in geographical self-description.including Yountville and Napa. Thus,the Bureau does not find that thiscriteria is a useful means ofdistinguishing vineyards and winerieswithin the appellation from thoseoutside the appellation.

Both Group A and Group B submittedvarious articles from the wine press andthe general press to support therespective boundaries proposed. Most ofthe articles submitted did not articulatespecific boundaries for the Stags LeapDistrict, but merely referred to the factthat various wineries or vineyards werelocated within the boundaries of StagsLeap. Of the articles which did mentionspecific boundaries, there was nouniformity.

For example, one article implied thatthe Stags Leap District area extended asfar west as the Napa River (Petition,Exhibit 13. Trumpetvine Wines, April1985, "Stags Leap Saga, Part 1I"), whileothers implied that the Silverado Trail(Petition, Exhibit 13, Connoisseur'sGuide to California Wine, Jan-Feb1977), or perhaps an area to the westthereof (Hearing Exhibit 12, the NapaRegister (4/17/81), "Napa Wines TakeTasting Htonors") were the boundary. Inone article, a vineyard/winery owner

described the Stags Leap District asconsisting of only 450 acres (Petition,Exhibit 13, The Wine Spectator, January1-31, 1985, "Standing Fast forCabernet"), while in another article, itwas described as consisting of 1,000acres. (Petition, Exhibit 13, Friends ofWine, April-May 1984, "Napa WineryProfiles: The Quest For Site").

Some of the evidence submitted wassusceptible of more than oneinterpretation. For example, in supportof the extended northern boundary,Group B submitted as evidence a mapprepared by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Soil ConservationService (SCS) which included a sub-district known as "South East YountvilleStag's Leap Area." (NPRM Comment 1,pp. 6-7). The sub-district had as itsnorthern boundary the Yountville CrossRoad, and as its western boundary theNapa River. Although the southernboundary extended almost all the wayto the city of Napa, it did not include thevineyards owned by Mr. Altamura orMr. Weir.

Group A countered with the claim thatthe map supported its assertion tha theso-called northern extension was a partof Yountville. (fHearing Comment 84, p.7). ATF contacted the SCS, and wasinformed by letter dated May 16, 1988,that the boundaries were drawn basedon the property lines of "cooperators,"i.e., ranches and farms being assisted bythe SCS. (Requested Information 5). Themap was for internal filing purposesonly, and was not distributed to thepublic. In addition, the map submittedby Group B was a replacement for oneoriginally drawn up during the 1950s, butwhich had been lost sometime before1983. Consequently, as pointed out bythe SCS, " *. it is highly unlikely thatthe current map matches the original."Therefore, ATF has concluded that themap is not of great evidentiary weight,and that it does not support conclusivelyeither Group A or Group B.

Both Group A and Group B havepointed for support to an article thatappeared in the September 1981 issue ofVintage Maguzine. entitled "How ManyStags in a Stag's Leap?" (Petition,Exhibit 13). In describing the Stags LeapDistrict, the author of the article,Richard Paul Hinkle, defined its bounds"[flor the immediate sake of argument,* * . as being Clos du Val on the south,the Silverado Trail on the west, anextension of the Yountville Cross Roadon the north (just south of RectorReservoir), and the rocky promontoriesof the eastern flank of the MayacamusMountains (also called Stags Leap) tothe east."

4012


Group B uses this article in support ofits contention that the northernboundary goes as far north as theYountville Cross Road. (NPRMComment 1, p. 4, 8). Group A points tothe fact that the boundaries asarticulated by Mr. Hinkle wouldeliminate all vineyards located west ofthe Silverado Trail (Hearing Comment84, p. 6) including, among others, thevineyards of S. Anderson Vineyard, PineRidge Winery, Silverado Vineyards, andMondavi Winery. However, Mr. Hinde'sarticle does go on to say that "[a]significant chunk of acreage may bedisputed when the western boundariescome up for discussion. Involved are theDisney (Silverado) vineyards * * *, PineRidge's vines * * *, andMondavi's * *."

ATF finds that neither the Hinklearticle, nor any other article submittedin the rulemaking record, specificallylists boundaries identical to eitherproposal. In addition, none of thearticles submitted provides acomprehensive, all-inclusive list ofwineries and vineyards included in thearea which would correspond to theboundaries proposed by Group A orGroup B.

Most of the articles submitted werenot intended to present definitive lists ofthe wineries and vineyards within theStags Leap District. Therefore, ATF doesnot find that the fact that somevineyards or wineries were notmentioned is evidence that thosevineyards or wineries are not within theStags Leap District. Some of the smallervineyards located in the center of theproposed Stags Leap District were notmentioned in any of the articlessubmitted. Instead, ATF has found thepress articles useful in setting theparameters of the boundaries of theStags Leap District.

With reference to the disputednorthern boundary, it should be notedthat Group A did not submit any articleswhich specifically placed the northernboundary at the hills, as proposed inNotice No. 620. However, Group Bsubmitted one article which specificallyincluded S. Anderson Vineyard on amap of the "Stag's Leap Area." (NPRMComment 1, Exhibit E). In addition,Group B submitted a copy of a 1983itinerary for a wine touring business,Wine Adventures, Inc., which-refers toS. Anderson Vineyard as being locatedin the Stag's Leap region. (HearingComment 47; Requested Information 2).Thus, ATF finds that the weight of theevidence supported the northernaddition proposed by Group B.

3. Western Boundary

With reference to the westernboundary, although there was no disputeto the boundary among the participantsat the hearing, ATF did receiveconflicting evidence as to its correct-location. Specifically, while Group Aamended its petition to move thewestern boundary from the hills west ofthe Silverado Trail to the Napa River,articles were submitted which indicatedthat the western boundary wassomewhere east of the Napa River.(Hearing Exhibit 12; Petition, Exhibit 13).This conflict was noted in the Hinklearticle previously mentioned. However,Group A presented evidence whichindicated that the Napa River was thewestern boundary of the Stags LeapDistrict area. (Petition, Exhibit 13). Inaddition, Group A submitted articleswhich specifically included SilveradoVineyards and Mondavi Wineryvineyards as part of the Stags Leap area.(Second Amendment, pp. 3-4; Petition,Exhibit 13). ATF finds that the weight ofthe evidence supports the placement ofthe western boundary at the Napa River,as proposed in Notice No. 620.

4. Examples of Evidence Utilized inSupport of Decision

ATF has utilized over 40 pieces ofinformation which, taken collectively,support the boundaries as adopted inthis Treasury decision. In the followingparagraphs, the Bureau will providesome examples of the evidence it usedin establishing the boundaries of theStags Leap District viticultural area.

Northern Boundary--S. AndersonVineyard. (1) A copy of an itinerary(dated 10/13/83) for a wine touringbusiness, Wine Adventures, Inc., whichrefers to S. Anderson Vineyard as beinglocated in the Stags Leap wine region.(Hearing Comment 47; RequestedInformation 2).

(2) An article, entitled "(Sinskey)Winery Cleared Over Objections"(Napa Register, 2/5/87), includes S.Anderson Vineyard on a map of the"Stag's Leap Area." (NPRM Comment 1,Exhibit E).

(North) Eastern Boundary-ShaferWinery, Stags'Leap Winery. (1) Copiesof certificates of label approval forShafer brand 1978 Cabernet Sauvignonand 1980 Zinfandel (dated 5/20/80 and3/5/82, respectively). The labels indicatethat the "grapes were grown in theStag's Leap area of the Napa Valley."The grapes were grown in Shafer'svineyards. (Petition, Exhibit 10;Requested Information 4).

(2) An article in the April-May 1984issue of Friends of Wine (page 35) whichdescribes Shafer Vineyards as being

located in the Stags' Leap area. (Petition,Exhibit 13).

(3) A copy of a certificate of labelapproval (dated 8/20/82) for Pine Ridgebrand 1980 Merlot. The label indicatesthat part of the wine was derived fromgrapes grown in the "Stag's Leapdistrict." The grapes came from thevineyards of Stags' Leap Winery.(Petition, Exhibit 10; RequestedInformation 4).

(4) An article in the April 1985 issue ofTrumpetvine Wines, entitled "StagsLeap Saga, Part II," describes Stags'Leap Winery as being located in the"Stags Leap area." (Petition, Exhibit 13).

Southern Boundary-Clos du ValWinery. (1) In the revised edition of BobThompson's "The Pocket Encyclopediaof California Wines" (Copy. 1985), areference is made that "most of thegrapes (to make Clos du Val wines)come from winery-owned vineyardsaround the cellars at Stag's Leap ...

(2) In the third edition of AlexisLichine's "New Encyclopedia of Wines& Spirits" (Copy. 1984), Clos du ValWinery is described as having "about300 acres * * * of vineyards in the Stag'sLeap and Carneros districts * *.

Western Boundary-SilveradoVineyards, Robert Mondavi Winery. (1)A copy of a photograph that appeared inthe January 1-31, 1982 issue of The WineSpectator, with the caption "SilveradoVineyard, in Napa's Stag's Leap area,takes form." (Petition, Exhibit 13).

(2) In a review of Silverado's 1981Cabernet, the California Grapevine(April-May 1984) noted that the "grapeswere estate-grown in the Stag's Leaparea." (Second Amendment, p. 5).

(3) In an article appearing in the SanFrancisco Examiner (3/9/83), writerHarvey Steiman notes that "RobertMondavi has vineyards here (Stag'sLeap District)." (Petition, Exhibit 13).

(4) An article in the April 1985 issue ofTrumpetvine Wines (previouslymentioned), includes the vineyards ofRobert Mondavi, east of the Napa Riverand west of the Silverado Trail, as beingincluded in the "Stags Leap area."(Petition, Exhibit 13).

Central Area-Pine Ridge Winery,Steltzner Vineyards, Stag's Leap WineCellars, Nathan Fay Vineyards. (1) Inthe September 1981 issue of theAlabama Wine Guide (Vol. 1, No. 4),Pine Ridge Winery is described as being"located in the Stag's Leap district of theNapa Valley." (Hearing Exhibit 12).

(2) In an article that appeared in theJune 1, 1983 edition of the San FranciscoChronicle, entitled "Cabernets of Stag'sLeap," writer Anthony Dias Bluementions some of the wineries in the"Stags Leap district" including Pine

41013


Ridge and Stag's Leap Wine Cellars.Reference is also made to the vineyardsof Richard Steltzner as being located inthe Stags Leap area. (Petition, Exhibit13).

(3) In the third edition (revised) of"The Connoisseurs' Handbook ofCalifornia Wines" by Charles E. Olken,Earl G. Singer and Norman S. Roby(Copy. 1984), Stag's Leap is described asbeing east of Yountville and includingStag's Leap Wine Cellars. (Petition,Exhibit 13).

(4) Point of sale literature for St.Andrew's Vineyard brand 1981Cabernet Sauvignon which indicatesthat part of the wine was derived fromgrapes grown in the "Stag's Leap area inthe Napa Valley." The grapes weregrown in Richard Steltzner's vineyards.(Petition, Exhibit 11; RequestedInformation 1).

(5) A copy of a certificate of labelapproval (dated 3/15/82) for SanFrancisco Symphony brand 1979Cabernet Sauvignon which indicates"Stag's Leap District" as the origin of thewine. The label states that the grapescame from the vineyards of RichardSteltzner.

(6) A copy of a certificate of labelapproval (dated 10/30/80) for BerkeleyWine Cellars brand 1978 CabernetSauvignon which indicates the "Stag'sLeap Region of Napa Valley" as theorigin of the wine. The grapes came, inpart, from the vineyards of Nathan Fay.(Petition, Exhibit 11; RequestedInformation 1).

(7) A copy of a certificate of labelapproval (dated 6/1/84) for Bay Cellarsbrand 1982 Clarion red wine. The labelindicates that the wine was produced, inpart, from grapes grown in the "Stag'sLeap region." The grapes came fromNathan Fay's vineyards. (Petition,Exhibit 11; Requested Information 1).

After consideration of all of theevidence presented, ATF has concludedthat there is sufficient evidence tosubstantiate that the additional areaproposed by Group B has been and iscurrently considered within the StagsLeap District by the general public.Consequently, ATF finds that the areaencompassed within the boundariesproposed by Group B accurately reflectsthe grape growing region known asStags Leap District.

C. Geographical Features

Group A contends that their proposedarea is distinguished from surroundingareas by geographical features. Theymaintain that the topography, climate,and soils which characterize theirproposed area combine to produceunique growing conditions. Moreover,they contend that the additional area

encompassed by the Group B proposal ischaracterized by geographical featureswhich are more similar to the NapaValley floor than to their proposed area.

On the other hand, Group B maintainsthat there are no significant differencesin topography or climate between thearea proposed in Notice No. 620 and thenorthern extension area. Group Bpresented evidence that the soils in thenorthern extension were the same as thesoils in the proposed area.

1. Topography

In their initial petition, Group Asubmitted evidence that the proposedStags Leap (District) viticultural areahad a distinct microclimate, resultingfrom the orographic configuration of thearea. They contended that the area,surrounded on three sides by hills ormountains, was configured like a funnel,which accentuated the inflow of cool airfrom San Pablo Bay, which is locatedsouth of the proposed area. (Petition, pp.38-39). As stated in the weather reportof Irving P. Krick Associates, Inc.(Petition. p. 39):

The wide end of the funnel faces south toreceive the bay breeze and the frequent fogsand low clouds which accompany it. Thesebreezes are then guided into the area by itsunique topography, including the mountainsto the east of the Silverado Trail and theseries of contiguous hills to the west of theTrail, which serve as the two sides of thefunnel.

The Krick report goes on to state thatthe topography of the area also controlsthe movement of air out of the area,"[slpecifically, the air exits to themountain elevations to the north or,* * * to the main valley floor throughthe narrow passes at the north of StagsLeap." (Petition, p. 39).

However, with the subsequentextension of the western boundary fromthe hills west of the Silverado Trail tothe Napa River (Second Amendment), asproposed in Notice No. 620, ATF doesnot believe that the topography of theviticultural area is a significantgeographical feature in determining awestern boundary. As meteorologistDonald Schukraft (Weather Network,Inc.) stated at the public hearing indiscussing the extended (western) area,"[t/here is no funnel effect here. Thisarea is open to the Valley." (Tr. Vol. I, p.125).

Similarly, ATF does not believe thattopography is a significant geographicfeature in determining the northernboundary of the Stags Leap Districtviticultural area. Although thepetitioners had noted that the northernring of hills, just south of the YountvilleCross Road, defined part of the "funnel,"no evidence was submitted in the

rulemaking proceeding whichconclusively demonstrated a differencebetween the area north and south of thehills.

2. Climate-Temperature

In their Second Amendment, Group Aincluded a weather study of theproposed viticultural area (as specifiedin Notice No. 620), prepared by WeatherNetwork, Inc. Weather data wasobtained from thermographs andautomatic weather stations located bothinside and outside (e.g., approximatelyY2 mile west of) the proposedviticultural area. As noted in the report(Second Amendment, p. 34):

* * * the daily maximum and minimumtemperatures recorded by the stations inStags Leap District were generally severaldegrees higher than those recorded by theweather station to the west of the Naps Riverand near the center of the Valley floor. Onsome days the differences between the twostations were over ten degrees.

However, Weather Network. Inc. didnot set up a weather station in theproposed northern extension area.Consequently, there is no data availablefrom that area. Moreover, the petitionershad conceded that actual maximumtemperature values were notsignificantly different from those innearby areas. (Petition, p. 40). In theaforementioned Krick report, it wasstated that the funnel effect did notcause degree day values as currentlycalculated to vary appreciably betweenthe Stags Leap area and the adjacentNapa Valley areas, and "for this reasonit would be misleading to use onlydegree-days as a criteria for evaluatingthe microclimate of the variousvineyards within short distances ofStags Leap." (Petition, p. 40).

At the public hearing, Mr. DonaldSchukraft, a certified consultingmeteorologist, commented that the hillsalong the northern boundary of theproposed Stags Leap area "providechanges in the wind-flow pattern thatconsequently produce changes in thetemperatures and humidity in thevineyards to the north and south of thehills. These changes * * * are not foundat the Yountville Cross Road." (Tr. Vol.I, p. 118). For example, Mr. Sclhukraftasserted that on a day when the wind-flow is from the south, the air wouldflow around the northern hills (south ofthe Yountville Cross Road) and exit thearea south of the northern hills, resultingin temperatures that are lower andhumidity that is higher than the areanorth of the hills. However, Mr.Schukraft presented no climatologicaldata to support those conclusions.

4014


ATF received conflicting reports fromvineyard owners both within theproposed area and within the northernextension as to the effects of the windon their respective grape vines.

Mr. Richard Chambers, who owns avineyard in the northern extension,stated at the public hearing that the areain the northern extension (south of theYountville Cross Road) also receives thebreezes from the San Pablo Bay. (Tr.Vol. III, p. 25). To support thiscontention, he provided photographs ofhis vineyard and other vineyards in thenorthern extension (S. AndersonVineyard and Missimer Vineyard)which depicted grape vines bent over,growing toward the north, away fromthe south wind. On the other hand, inthe area around Yountville (west of theNapa River), Mr. Chambers noted onlyneutral vine growth. (Hearing Exhibit27). As to how far north the strong windextended, Mr. Chambers stated that "itundoubtedly crosses the YountvilleCross Road," before dissipating in thearea further up State Lane. (Tr. Vol. III,p. 26).

However, Group A submittedevidence to the contrary. In their post-hearing brief (Hearing Comment 84,Exhibit P), Mr. John Stuart of SilveradoVineyards stated that in Silverado'svineyards in Yountville, cane growth isalso oriented toward the north, withsubsequent wind damage. Mr. RobertEgan submitted a post-hearing comment(Hearing Comment 85) which includedphotographs of Mr. Chambers' vineyardand Mr. Anderson's vineyard indicatingthat the wind had little or no effect onthe vines or canes in either vineyard.

Mr. Egan provided photographs of hisown vineyard, located just south of thenorthern hills, and suggested that thevines tended to lean to the north as aresult of the wind.

ATF finds that the evidence presentedas to the effect of the wind within theproposed viticultural area is tooinconclusive to support a finding thatthe northern hills provide a significantbarrier to the winds from the south, withresulting differences in temperature.ATF notes that the evidence presentedat the hearing indicated that there wasno "funnel effect" from the area west ofthe hills west of the Silverado Trail tothe Napa River. ATF does not believethat the "funnel effect" represents asignificant geographical feature of theentire viticultural area as proposed byGroup A. Therefore, ATF does notbelieve that climate, with regard totemperature, is a significantdistinguishing geographical feature indetermining the boundaries of the StagsLeap District viticultural area.

3. Cimate-Precipitation/Moisture

Based on data presented in the USDASCS Soil Survey of Napa County,California (August 1978), averageannual precipitation within the StagsLeap District is 25 to 30 inches.

Similar amounts of rainfall can beexpected in the areas west and south ofthe viticultural area, while averagerainfall north and east of the viticulturalarea increases to between 30 and 35inches. ATF notes that there is noconclusive evidence that the areabetween the Yountville Cross Road andthe northern hills has differentprecipitation patterns from the proposedviticultural area.

Professor Elliott-Fisk, an expertwitness for Group A, concluded that thetypes of plants and density of forestsand woodlands on the ridges and hills ofthe proposed Stags Leap Districtindicate the entrapment of moist, marineair within the area. She also stated thatwith the exception of the oak-madronewoodland, other types of woodlandsfound within the proposed Stags LeapDistrict, such as the oak forest, madroneforest, and conifer-hardwood forest, donot continue to the north and south ofthe proposed district. (Hearing Comment84, Exhibit M. p. 2). This evidence wasdisputed by Mrs. Dorothy Barboza, avineyard owner in the northernextension, who sent photographs ofconifer trees in the northern extension.(Post Hearing Comment Period 3). TheBureau has determined that there isinsufficient evidence on this issue tosupport a finding that the types ofvegetation in the northern extensiondiffer significantly from the types ofvegetation found in the proposed StagsLeap District.

4. Soil-General

Based on the evidence submitted inthis rulemaking procedure, ATF hasconcluded that the soil (including thesubsoil) is the primary geographicalfeature that distinguishes Stags LeapDistrict from the surrounding areas.

According to the SCS soil survey,there are 31 soil series within NapaCounty. Approximately 45% of these soilseries are present within the Stags LeapDistrict, as adopted by this Treasurydecision. Certain of these soil series,such as Millsholm, Perkins, and Kidd,are found within the viticultural area butnot in the surrounding areas. However,within the Stags Leap District area, theBale soil series predominates. Bale soilsare also found to the north of theviticultural area, but not in thesurrounding areas to the east, south, orwest. The SCS describes Bale soils asbeing somewhat poorly drained on

alluvial fans, flood plains, and lowterraces. As described in the soil survey,they are formed in alluvium derivedfrom rhyolite and basic igneous rock. Inthe following paragraphs, the Bureauwill discuss the reasons why itconcluded that the soils of the StagsLeap District form the best geographicalbasis for distinguishing the District fromthe areas which surround it.

a. Eastern Boundary. The Stags Leapmountain range is located just east ofthe Stags Leap District. Consequently,this area consists mainly of Rockoutcrop and, to a lesser degree, theHambright soil series. The SCS soilsurvey notes that these types of soils arenot used for growing wine grapes, eitherbecause they are not suitable or there isno water available for irrigation. (SCSSoil Survey, August 1978, pp. 40-43).

b. Southern Boundary. The dominantsoils south of the viticultural areainclude the Hambright series, the Haireseries, the Yolo series, and the Coleseries. These four soil series convergejust south of the viticultural area and, ineffect, "pinch" it off. In addition, in itspost-hearing comment, Group A notedthat there is a confluence of threedrainage systems just south of theviticultural area-the Napa River, DryCreek, and Hopper Creek. (HearingComment 84, Exhibit U).

c. Western Boundary. In Group A'sinitial petition, they submitted a reporton soils from viticultural consultantRichard Nagoaka. Mr. Nagoaka statedthat the dominant soils west of the NapaRiver include the Yolo series, the Coleseries, and the Clear Lake Series.(Petition, p. 48). Mr. Nagoaka also statedthat:

The soils to the east of the (Napa) river (theStags Leap side) were deposited by alluvialforces from parent materials from the VacaRange on the eastern rim of the Napa Valley.By contrast, the soils to the west of the NapaRiver were deposited from parent materialsfrom the Mayacamus Range on the westernrim of the valley. These two ranges not onlyappear different, but are composed ofprofoundly different materials. (Petition, p.45).

According to Mr. Nagoaka, the Vacamountain range was formed about tenmillion years ago through volcanicactivity. In contrast, the Mayacamusmountain range formed about 30 millionyears ago, and is composed of fines andsedimentary materials. Thus, as Mr.Nagoaka pointed out, soils west of theNapa River "tend to be deeper, morefertile and of greater water-holdingcapacity" than those east of the NapaRiver. (Petition, p. 46). Because of thegreater water-holding capacity, soilswest of the Napa River do not require

4015


late irrigation. Mr. Nagoaka comparedthe water-holding capacity of the Colesilt loam soils (west of the Napa River)with the Bale clay loam soils east of theNapa River. He found that the Bale soilscontained 0.06-0.11 inches of availablewater per inch of soil, while the Colesoils contained 0.16-0.21 inches of waterper inch of soil, approximately doublethe water-holding capacity. Mr.Nagoaka concluded that"[vjiticulturally, the management ofvineyards west and east of the river isprofoundly influenced by the differentsoil types and their characteristics."(Petition. p. 50).

d. Northern Boundwy. The publichearing and subsequent commentsproduced much conflicting evidence asto classification of the soils in theproposed northern extension. Basedupon the following evidence, however,ATF has concluded that the soils in thenorthern extension are more similar tothe soils in the area proposed in NoticeNO. 620 than to the area to the north ofthe Yountville Cross Road. Thefollowing evidence was considered byATF:

i. Elliott-Fisk Geography Report. Atthe hearing, Professor Deborah Elliott-Fisk, an Assistant Professor, Departmentof Geography, University of California,Davis, testified on behalf of Group A.Professor Elliott-Fisk stated, on thebasis of soil samples taken in the areanorth of the Yountville Cross Road, thatshe believed that the soils south of theYountville Cross Road had beenincorrectly mapped as Bale clay loam onSCS maps. (Tr. Vol. I, p. 94-95).

Professor Elliott-Fisk conceded,however, that she had not taken any soilsamples from the area south of theYountville Cross Road. In their post-hearing brief, Group A summarized thefindings of Professor Elliott-Fisk, asfollows:

The vineyard area within (the proposed)Stags Leap District, which once served as thechannel of the Napa River, contains alluvialsub-soils derived from volcanic andsedimentary bedrock and from Napa Riverdeposits. These soils have never beencovered by fan deposits and are fine, well-weathered and well-drained. By contrast, thesub-soils of the areas north and south of (theproposed) Stags Leap District are comprisedof more recent deposits of the well-definedRector Canyon Fan and Soda (Canyon) CreekFan, respectively. (Hearing Comment 84, p.11).

Professor Elliott-Fisk stated that thebeginning of the Rector Canyon Fanabutted the northern edge of the hillswhich were proposed as the northernboundary of Stags Leap District. Shestated that the Soda Canyon Fan beganat approximately the southern boundary

of the proposed viticultural area. (Tr.Vol. 1, p. 98; Hearing Exhibit 6).

In support of the above conclusions,Professor Elliott-Fisk stated that(subsequent to the hearing) she hadsampled and analyzed soils from bothwithin and outside of the proposedviticultural area. The samples within theproposed viticultural area were takenfrom the Egan property (just south of thenorthern hills), and the SilveradoVineyards property (just inside theproposed western boundary, east of theNapa River). Samples were also takenfrom the Simonson property in thenorthern extension (just north of theproposed northern boundary, and southof the Yountville Cross Road), and fromanother Egan property (just north of theYountville Cross Road, and west ofState Lane), and from two sites justsouth of the proposed southernboundary of Stags Leap District (ShaferWinery's Oak Knoll vineyard).

In her report (Hearing Comment 113),Professor Elliott-Fisk noted that heranalyses of the above-mentionedsamples indicated the following:

(a) The soils on the properties ofSimonson (located in the northernextension), and Egan (located just northof the Yountville Cross Road), were bothformed on the Rector Canyon Fan;however, the Egan soil is "at the outermargin of the Rector Canyon Fan andthe outer margin of the Napa Riverflood-plain/historic terrace." (HearingComment 113, p. 6).

(b) The soil on the Egan propertywithin the proposed Stags Leap Districtis on the old (former) Napa Riverchannel;

(c) The Silverado Vineyards propertyshares soil similarities with the morecentral portion of the proposed StagsLeap District, and;

(d) The soils on the Shafer property,just south of the proposed viticulturalarea, are on the Soda Canyon Fan.

Group A also contended that thedifferent sub-soil profiles andcompositions "are particularly relevantviticulturally because grape vinestypically root in the sub-soil, not just thetopsoil." (Hearing Comment 84, p. 11).

ii. Zinke Geography Report. In itspost-hearing comment (HearingComment 101), S. Anderson Vineyardincluded a soils report prepared byProfessor Paul Zinke, a professor in theDepartment of Forestry, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. Professor Zinkeconcluded, on the basis of observationshe made while visiting the proposedStags Leap District and its surroundingarea, a review of various soil surveys,soil maps and topographical maps, andsoil samples taken on a second visit tothe proposed viticultural area, that the

soils of the Stags Leap District(including the northern extension), areconsistent throughout the propertiesstretching from a line following thesmall drainage channel approximatelyparallel to and immediately north of theYountville Cross Road, west of theSilverado Trail, south to a point near theChimney Rock Golf Course. He foundthat:

The distinctive soil aspect of the ProposedStags Leap District, including the NorthernExtension, is a catena or topographicsequence of soils beginning in the east with aterrace against the base of the Stags LeapRidge at an elevation of approximately 200feet, continuing with an alluvial fan on whichsoils of the Bale series occur, then to thelower end where the fan buries deposits ofthe Napa River in the west. These distinctivecombinations of soils occur several places inthe Stags Leap District from immediatelynorth of the Yountville Cross Road to nearthe Chimney Rock Golf Course. (HearingComment 101, Zinke Report, p. 1).

Professor Zinke stated that theReactor Creek (Canyon) Fan begins at adrainage ditch which is approximatelyparallel to, and just north of theYountville Cross Road. According toProfessor Zinke:

This is the line where the soils change fromthose of the Stags Leap District to the coarsersoils of the Rector Creek Fan. North of thisdrainage ditch the soils begin to bedominated by the Rector Creek alluvial fan.(Hearing Comment 101. Zinke Report, p. 8).

SCS and USGS Reports. ATF wasthus presented with conflicting reportsfrom two experts in the field as to thecharacteristics of the soils in thenorthern extension. Both ProfessorsElliott-Fisk and Zinke acknowledged thepresence of a Rector Canyon (Creek)Fan, and believed that Rector Canyonsoils were different from Stags LeapDistrict soils. However, whereasProfessor Elliott-Fisk believed that theRector Canyon Fan begins at thenorthern hills at the northern boundaryof the proposed viticultural area,Professor Zinke believed that it begansome 500 yards north of the hills, on thenorth side of the Yountville Cross Road.

The evidence submitted led ATF tothe conclusion that the soils andsubsoils were the primary geographicalfeature that distinguished the Stags LeapDistrict from surrounding areas. In orderto better evaluate the conflicting expertevidence which had been submitted onthe issue of soils, ATF forwarded copiesof the reports of Professors Elliott-Fiskand Zinke to the SCS and the UnitedStates Geological Survey (USGS) fortheir review and response.

By letter dated May 16, 1988, the SCSresponded to ATF's request. (Requested

4016


Information 5). The SCS was unable toreach any definitive conclusions fromthe evidence before it, but did addressProfessor Elliott-Fisk's assertion that thesoils in the northern extension had beenincorrectly classified on the SCS map.The SCS included with its response aninternal memorandum, dated May 5,1988, which stated that almost all soildelineations contain small areas of othersoils, often quite contrasting soils, whichare called "inclusions." The letter statedthat "it is important to note that thesample sites in her (Professor Elliott-Fisk's) report do not necessarily confirmthat Bale soils similar to those describedsouth of the 'Rector Canyon Fan' line donot exist within the northern extensionproposed by Zinke."

By letter dated June 9, 1988, the USGSsubmitted its review of the data.(Requested Information 7). The letternoted that the reviewer was merelyanalyzing the reports, and did not havethe advantage of a field review, detailedphotographic review, or review of thedata collected by either consultant. Thereviewer concluded that there werereasonable arguments and data tosupport either position of the northernboundary.

The USGS reviewer noted theheterogeneity of soil types within theproposed Stags Leap District. (Aspreviously mentioned, of the 31 soilseries present within Napa County,approximately 45% of these are found inthe viticultural area.) Thus, because ofthe diversity of soil types, the USGSbelieved that it was important toascertain whether the soils in thenorthern extension were similar to thosein the proposed viticultural area, oruniquely different.

In addition, the USGS believed itimportant to determine whether the soilsin the northern extension were more likethe Rector Canyon (Fan) deposits andsoils than the Stags Leap District soilssince, as previously noted, bothProfessors Elliott-Fisk and Zinkebelieved that Rector Canyon soils weredifferent from Stags Leap District soils.

The USGS concluded that, in theiropinion, there was insufficient dataavailable to argue that the soils in thenorthern extension (south of theYountville Cross Road) are significantlydifferent from those within the proposedStags Leap District. Further, the USGSopined that a more detailed study couldconclude that the soils in the northernextension are transitional to both theRector Canyon Fan and the Stags Leapmaterials. In any event, based on theavailable data, the USGS concluded thatthe soils in the northern extensionappear to be more similar to the soilswithin the proposed viticultural area

than to the soils north of the YountvilleCross Road.

Although the USGS stated that itcould not recommend that a solelygeologic, geomorphologic, or soils basisbe used to determine the northernboundary of the district, the Bureauwould note that viticultural areaboundaries are not based solely ongeographical features.

On the basis of geographical criteria,ATF finds that the area within theproposed Stags Leap District and thearea within the northern extension arenot distinguishable from one another.The evidence indicates that the climate,soil, precipitation, etc. within the areaproposed by Group A, and the areawithin the northern extension proposedby Group B, are virtually the same.Although there are differences, ATFfinds that there is insufficient evidenceto indicate that these differencesdistinguish the proposed areas from oneanother.

ATF finds that the weight of theevidence supports the SCS map'sclassification of the soils in the northernextension as being predominantly Baleclay loam. Further, ATF finds that theevidence supports the conclusion of theUSGS that the soils within the northernextension are more similar to the soilsfound in the proposed Stags LeapDistrict than to the soils found north ofthe Yountville Cross Road. Therefore,ATF concludes, based on the evidence,that the northern extension area isdistinguished by viticultural featuresfrom the remaining surrounding areas.

In summation, ATF finds that theboundaries proposed by Group B satisfythe criteria of 27 CFR 4.25a(e)(2)(iii) byencompassing an area that possessesgenerally homogeneous viticulturalfeatures different from surroundingareas which are distinguished bygeographical features.

VI. Final Rule-Boundary Modifications

Based on the evidence in therulemaking record, with the exception ofthe northern boundary, ATF is adoptingthe boundaries of the Stags Leap Districtviticultural area as proposed in NoticeNo. 620. ATF finds that the evidencesubmitted by Group B satisfies thecriteria specified in § 4.25a(d)(2) of theregulations, and the northern boundaryof the Stags Leap District viticulturalarea as proposed in Notice No. 620 is,therefore, modified to extend to theYountville Cross Road.

VII. Boundaries of the AreaThe boundaries of the Stags Leap

District viticultural area may be foundon one United States Geological Survey(U.S.G.S.) map of the 7.5 minute series,

titled Yountville, California. Theboundaries are described in § 9.117.

VIII. Additional Information

A. Miscellaneous

ATF does not want to give theimpression that, by approving "StagsLeap District" as a viticultural area, it isapproving or endorsing the quality of thewine from this area. ATF is approvingthis area as being distinct, but not betterthan other areas. By approving this area,ATF will allow wine producers to claima distinction on labels and inadvertisements as to the origin of thegrapes. Any commercial advantage canonly come from consumer acceptance of"Stags Leap District" wines.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The provisions of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act relating to a finalregulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C.604) are not applicable to this final rulebecause it will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. The final rulewill not impose, or otherwise cause, asignificant increase in the reporting,recordkeeping, or other complianceburdens on a substantial number ofsmall entities.

Accordingly, it is hereby certifiedunder the provisions of Section 3 of theRegulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.605(b)), that this final rule will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 12291

In compliance with Executive Order12291, the Bureau has determined thatthis regulation is not a major rule sinceit will not result in:

(a) An annual effect on the economyof $100 million or more;

(b) A major increase in costs or pricesfor consumers, individual industries,Federal, State, or local governmentagencies, or geographical regions; or

(c) Significant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investment,productivity, innovation, or on theability of United States-basedenterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or exportmarkets.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of the PaperworkReduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511, 44U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementingregulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do notapply to this final rule because norequirement to collect information isimposed.

4017


E. Disclosure

A copy of the petition (andamendments), the hearing transcript andexhibits, and the comments received areavailable for inspection during normalbusiness hours at the following location:ATF Reading Room, Room 4412.Disclosure Branch, 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW., Washington, DC.

F. Drafting Information

The principal author of this documentis James P. Ficaretta, Wine and BeerBranch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,and Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Administrative practice andprocedure, Consumer protection,Viticultural areas, and Wine.

IX. Authority and Issuance

Par. 1. The authority citation for 27CFR Part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

PART 9-AMERICAN VICULTURALAREAS

Par. 2. The table of sections in 27 CFRPart 9, Subpart C, is amended to add theheading of § 9.117 to read as follows:

Subpart C-Approved American ViticulturalAreas

Sec.

9.117 Stags Leap District.

Par. 3. Subpart C is amended byadding § 9.117 to read as follows:

Subpart C-Approved AmericanViticultural Areas

§ 9.117 Stags Leap District.(a) Name. The name of the viticultural

area described in this section is "StagsLeap District."

(b) Approved map. The appropriatemap for determining the boundaries ofthe Stags Leap District viticultural areais one U.S.G.S. topographic map in the7.5 minute series, scaled 1:24000, titled"Yountville, Calif.," 1951 (photorevised1968).

(c) Boundaries. The Stags LeapDistrict viticultural area is located inNapa County, California, within theNapa Valley viticultural area. Theboundaries are as follows:

(1) Commencing at the intersection ofthe intermittent stream (drainage creek)with the Silverado Trail at the 60 footcontour line in T6N/R4W,approximately 7 miles north of the cityof Napa.

(2) Then southwest in a straight line.approximately 900 feet, to the mainchannel of the Napa River.

(3) Then following the main branch ofthe Napa River (not the southern branchby the levee) in a northwesterly thennortherly direction, until it intersects themedium-duty road (Grant Bdy) in T7N/R4W, known locally as the YountvilleCross Road.

(4) Then northeast along theYountville Cross Road until it intersectsthe medium-duty road, the SilveradoTrail.

(5) Then north along the SilveradoTrail approximately 590 feet to a gullyentering the Silverado Trail from theeast.

(6) Then northeast along the centerline of that gully, approximately 800 feet,until it intersects the 400 foor contourline in Section 30 of T7N/R4W.

(7) Then in a generally southeastdirection, following the 400 foot contourline through Sections 29, 32, 33, 4, and 3,until it intersects the intermittent streamin the southwest corner of Section 3 inTON/R4W.

(8) Then in a generally southwestdirection along that intermittent streamto the beginning point, at theintersection with the Silverado Trail.

Signed: December 20, 1988.Stephen E. Higgins,Director.

Approved: January 6,1989.John P. Simpson,Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory,Trade and Tariff Enforcement).[FR Doc. 89-1841 Filed 1-26--89; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810-31-M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

35 CFR Part 253

Regulations of the Secretary of theArmy (Panama Canal EmploymentSystem); Employment Policy

AGENCY: Department of the Army,Defense.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The final rule removeslanguage in § 253.8 of title 35, Code ofFederal Regulations, which hadpreviously excluded bureau directorsand heads of independent units of thePanama Canal Commission fromeligibility for the overseas recruitmentor retention differential authorized bysection 1217 of the Panama Canal Act of1979. The removal of this exclusionarylanguage allows these Commission

officials to receive the appropriatedifferential. The revisions also reflectchanges in titles and positions withinthe Commission.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 27, 1989.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. Michael Rhode, Jr., Assistant to theChairman and Secretary, Panama CanalCommission, 2000 L Street NW.,Washington, DC 20036-4996 (Telephone:202-634-6441) or Mr. John L. Haines, Jr.,General Counsel, Panama CanalCommission, APO Miami 34011-5000(Telephone in Balboa Heights, Republicof Panama: 011-507-52-7511).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issuanceof a notice of proposed rulemakingunder 5 U.S.C. 553 is not necessarybecause this final rule pertains only topersonnel of agencies covered by theseregulations. Section 1217 of the PanamaCanal Act of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3657),authorizes the head of the PanamaCanal Commission to pay an overseasrecruitment of retention differential toeligible employees. In addition to thestatutory requirements of the Act,agency regulations published at 35 CFR251.31 (tropical differential) and 35 CFR251.32 (Panama Area differential)contain requirements governingeligibility for the differentials. Bureaudirectors and heads of independentunits of the Panama Canal Commission,however, are not covered by either thestatute or the regulations due to theexclusionary language of 35 CFR253.8(d). The final rule reflects theCommission's desire that theseCommission officials receive theappropriate differential as do otherCommission employees.

The final rule revises § 253.8(d) toapply the provisions of 22 U.SC. 3657, 35CFR 251.31 and 251.32, except for§§ 251.31(b)(4) and 251.32(b)(2) tobureau directors and heads ofindependent units. Accordingly, thebureau directors and heads ofindependent units may receive thedifferential subject to the sameeligibility requirements as otherCommission employees, except thatthese officials will not be subject to theprovisions of § § 251.31(b)(4) and251.32(b)(2), which limit payment of thediffferential to an amount which, whencombined with basic compensation,does not exceed the current rate of step5, GS-17 of the General Schedule set outin 5 U.S.C. 5332(a). In other words,bureau directors and heads ofindependent units will not be subject tothe step 5, GA-17 limitation, but rather,will receive, in addition to basiccompensation, the appropriatedifferential regardless of the amount of

4018

Documents

Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 17 Friday, January 27, 1989 ...appellation, Stag's Leap Wine Cellars and Stags' Leap Winery. On June 26, 1986, Group A submitted a second amendment and