[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33239-33243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8854]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[T.D. TTB-46; Re: Notice No. 45]
RIN: 1513-AB02


Establishment of the San Antonio Valley Viticultural Area (2004R-
599P)

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes the San Antonio Valley 
viticultural area in southwestern Monterey County, California, within 
the existing Central Coast viticultural area. We designate viticultural 
areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines 
and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.

DATES: Effective Date: July 10, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco 
Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division, P.O. Box 18152, 
Roanoke, VA 24014; telephone 540-344-9333.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas

TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA 
Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol beverage labels 
provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity 
and prohibits the use of misleading information on such labels. The FAA 
Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations 
to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau (TTB) administers these regulations.
    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the 
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their 
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains 
the list of approved viticultural areas.

Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) 
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries 
of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. 
These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given 
quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes 
grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of 
viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the 
origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify 
wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is 
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in 
that area.

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure 
for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any 
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region 
as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires 
the petition to include--
     Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally 
and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
     Historical or current evidence that supports setting the 
boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
     Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as 
climate, soils, elevation, and physical features,

[[Page 33240]]

that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
     A description of the specific boundary of the proposed 
viticultural area, based on features shown on United States Geological 
Survey (USGS) maps; and
     A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed 
viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.

San Antonio Valley Petition and Rulemaking

General Background

    Paul Getzelman, Paula Getzelman, and Steve Cobb of Lockwood, 
California, petitioned TTB to establish the ``San Antonio Valley'' 
viticultural area in southwestern Monterey County, California, in a 
valley situated in the Santa Lucia mountain range. The area is entirely 
within the existing multi-county Central Coast viticultural area (27 
CFR 9.75). According to the petitioners, there are approximately 235 
square miles, or 150,400 acres of land, within the San Antonio Valley 
viticultural area. Over 700 of these acres are planted to vines.
    We summarize below the evidence presented in support of the 
petition.

Name Evidence

    According to the petitioners, the name ``San Antonio Valley'' dates 
back to 1771, when a small party of Spanish missionaries headed by 
Father Junipero Serra entered the oak-mantled valley in what was to 
become southern Monterey County. Near the river that he christened ``El 
Rio de San Antonio,'' they established a mission and named it ``San 
Antonio de Padua'' in honor of Saint Anthony of Padua. They later moved 
the mission to a location a couple of miles north at the confluence of 
the San Miguel and San Antonio Rivers, which provided the missionaries 
a more suitable place to plant grape vines for making sacramental wine 
for the Mission.
    The petitioners cite the following reference sources as evidence of 
the historical and current usage of the name ``San Antonio Valley'':
     ``Memories of the San Antonio Valley,'' by Rachel Gillett, 
San Antonio Valley Historical Society, 1990. Ms. Gillet refers 
repeatedly to the area as ``San Antonio Valley.'' She states that the 
township of San Antonio was surveyed in 1865, near the El Camino Real 
or King's Highway (currently Jolon Road). She further notes that a San 
Antonio post office operated in the township from 1867 to 1887.
     ``California Place Names; The Origin and Etymology of 
Current Geographical Names,'' by Erwin G. Gudde and William Bright, 
University of California Press, Fourth Edition. The authors note that 
the name San Antonio, which appears in the titles of many land grants 
and claims, has survived in a number of places, including in the names 
of the San Antonio River, San Antonio Mission, San Antonio Creek, and 
San Antonio Valley.
     ``Monterey County Place Names, a Geographical 
Dictionary,'' by Donald Thomas Clark, Kestrel Press, 1991. The author 
writes of the San Antonio Valley, ``this is the valley through which 
the San Antonio River flows.''
     Pelican Network Guide, an Internet travel site, states the 
following about the San Antonio Valley: ``Nearly secret, San Antonio 
Valley is an intriguing * * * destination. About two and a half hours 
from Silicon Valley, yet far more remote in history, it provides 
environmental, literary, cultural, and historical rewards. San Antonio 
Valley is the setting for John Steinbeck's 'To an Unknown God', an 
early novel of his spiritual and ecological themes.'' (See http://www.pelicannetwork.net/getaways.sanantonio.valley.htm.)
    The petitioners state that although the valley has been known by 
various names, often due to changes in ownership under the Spanish land 
grant system, the name San Antonio Valley has endured. According to the 
petitioners, local residents have long known the area as San Antonio 
Valley. The name ``San Antonio'' is used throughout the area-the San 
Antonio Union School, San Antonio Reservoir, and San Antonio River all 
can be found on the USGS map for Williams Hill, California. The 
petitioners note that while the southern portion of the proposed 
viticultural area is also known as Lockwood Valley, the name 
``Lockwood'' is most accurately applied to a township in the southern 
portion of the San Antonio Valley.

Boundary Evidence

    The boundaries for the proposed viticultural area are the natural 
geographical boundaries of the San Antonio Valley. The proposed area, 
which includes approximately 150,400 acres of flat land and gently 
rolling hills, extends to the surrounding hillsides that rise to an 
elevation of approximately 2,200 feet. This valley, formed by the 
watershed of the San Antonio River, is situated in the Santa Lucia 
mountain range between the Pacific coast and the Salinas Valley. The 
San Antonio River flows across the Santa Lucia range in a southeasterly 
direction, then turns to the east and flows into the Salinas River. A 
dam built in the 1950s on the river near the San Luis Obispo County 
line created the San Antonio Reservoir, which dominates the 
southeastern corner of the proposed San Antonio Valley viticultural 
area.
    The proposed viticultural area's northwest boundary slices through 
part of the Fort Hunter Liggett Military Reservation. While the fort is 
currently under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, the 
petitioners note that it could be offered for sale to the public in the 
future. Because the military reservation encompasses much of the area 
in and around the boundary of the proposed San Antonio Valley 
viticultural area and shares the same growing conditions, the 
petitioners speculate that future uses of the land could include 
vineyards.

Distinguishing Features

    According to the petitioners, the San Antonio Valley's basin shape, 
elevation, climate, and soils contribute to significantly different 
growing conditions from those found in the adjoining areas within the 
extensive Central Coast viticultural area. The petitioners note that 
the Spanish missionaries were the first to recognize the valley's 
unique grape growing conditions. This viewpoint is reflected in the 
Pelican Network Guide, which states: ``The Spaniards, who liked the 
site for wine making because of its soil and climate, were right on the 
money.'' The growing conditions found in the proposed San Antonio 
Valley viticultural area are described by the petitioners below.
Elevation
    The elevation of the proposed San Antonio Valley viticultural area 
ranges from 850 feet to as high as 2,530 feet. The proposed area is 
surrounded by the higher Santa Lucia range to the west and south and a 
lower ridge averaging 1,500 feet in elevation to the north and east. 
According to the petitioners, the shape and elevation of the proposed 
area results in higher daytime and lower nighttime temperatures than in 
neighboring areas with lower elevations, such as the Monterey 
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.98) where the elevation ranges from 50 to 
540 feet. The petitioners assert that the daily heating-cooling cycle 
produced by the proposed San Antonio Valley viticultural area's higher 
elevation allows grapes to achieve full, rich fruit flavor and color 
while retaining a crisp acidity.
Soils
    Soil data submitted by the petitioners affirms that the San Antonio 
Valley has a distinctive soil profile comprised of

[[Page 33241]]

nearly 40 different soil series, the majority of them alluvial in 
nature. The remaining soils found in the uplands consist of material 
from weathered sandstone and shale. Current vineyards are planted on 
flat to moderately sloping terrain. The principal soil series are 
Arbuckle gravelly loam, Chamise shaly loam, Lockwood loam and shaly 
loam, Placentia sandy loam, Placentia-Arbuckle complex, Rincon clay 
loam, Nacimiento silty clay loam, and Pinnacles coarse sandy loam. The 
submitted soil data for the area came from ``Soil Survey of Monterey 
County, California,'' published by the Soil Conservation Service of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    The petitioners note that these soils differ from the soils of 
neighboring areas of Monterey County. In the San Bernabe viticultural 
area (27 CFR 9.171), for example, the soils, remnants of ancient sand 
dunes, are mostly of the eolian type. The adjacent Hames Valley 
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.147) has a very homogeneous soil profile 
with 75 percent of the soils derived from the Lockwood series. In 
contrast, the San Antonio Valley has a much more varied soil profile 
with the majority of the soil series being alluvial in nature.
Climate
    The petitioners state that the San Antonio Valley's climate is much 
less affected by marine air than other areas of the Central Coast. A 
stable layer of marine air typically dominates coastal California 
weather causing higher humidity, cooler maximum temperatures, and 
warmer minimum temperatures. This effect occurs with greater duration 
in valleys close to the coast, such as Carmel Valley, Edna Valley, 
Santa Ynez Valley, and the lower Salinas Valley. Its influence 
decreases as one travels inland, especially in the upper areas of the 
Salinas Valley. According to the petitioners, the inland position of 
the San Antonio Valley and its basin shape act to block the intrusion 
of this marine air. Only when the upper level of atmospheric pressure 
allows the layer of marine air to expand to greater than its typical 
depth of 1,000--1,500 feet does the San Antonio Valley experience a 
marine air influence. This lack of a marine air influence creates a 
unique microclimate for the area, with drier, hotter days in summer and 
cooler nights in the spring and fall.
    As evidence of this climatic distinction, the petitioners submitted 
temperature comparisons based on data from the National Weather Center. 
A comparison of growing season average monthly temperatures between San 
Antonio Valley and nearby areas (Carmel Valley, Gonzales, Arroyo Seco, 
King City, and Paso Robles) shows that San Antonio Valley is 
considerably cooler than the other areas during April. The petitioners 
state that this is due to the San Antonio Valley's basin shape and 
drier conditions, factors that they state also cause the San Antonio 
Valley to experience more frequent frost episodes. However, from June 
through September the proposed San Antonio viticultural area averages 
warmer temperatures than the other areas, with the exception of Paso 
Robles, an area further inland than the San Antonio Valley.
    The petitioners also submitted a comparison of both total growing 
season degree days and monthly degree days for the same places. (A 
measurement of heat accumulation during the growing season, one degree 
day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean 
temperature is above 50 degrees, which is the minimum temperature 
required for grapevine growth; see ``General Viticulture,'' by Albert 
J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1974.) These comparisons 
show that San Antonio Valley typically accumulates more than 3,000 
degree days during the growing season. Paso Robles accumulates 3,600 
degree days for the same period, while Carmel Valley, Gonzales, and 
Arroyo Seco all accumulate fewer than 2,400 degree days each. King City 
accumulates roughly as many degree days for the growing season as San 
Antonio Valley. However, the monthly comparison shows that in King City 
the degree days accumulate steadily through the months, while in the 
San Antonio Valley the increase and decrease in degree days is much 
more dramatic, with most of the increase occurring during the summer 
months.
    In addition to the temperature comparisons described above, the 
petitioners also submitted a microclimate comparison of the proposed 
San Antonio Valley viticultural area and two adjacent existing 
viticultural areas, Paso Robles and Hames Valley (27 CFR 9.84 and 
9.147, respectively). The data covered a two-week period from September 
16-29, 2003, and was collected at sites located on the Fort Hunter 
Liggett Military Reservation within the proposed viticultural area, at 
Bradley in the Hames Valley viticultural area, and at the Paso Robles 
Airport within the Paso Robles viticultural area. The petitioners 
submitted the data in the form of graphs exhibiting differences in 
temperature, dew point, humidity, and wind speeds between the three 
areas.
    According to the graphs, wind speeds for the period were 
significantly lower in San Antonio Valley than in Hames Valley or Paso 
Robles. The petitioners state that this is because the topography of 
the proposed viticultural area blocks the strongest daily afternoon 
winds created by marine air influence. Dew points for the period were 
shown to be at least 10 degrees lower in the proposed San Antonio 
Valley viticultural area than in the other viticultural areas, 
reflecting the proposed viticultural area's lower humidity. The 
temperature data, according to the petitioners, shows that the proposed 
San Antonio Valley viticultural area also has a temperature profile 
that differs markedly from that of the Hames Valley or Paso Robles 
viticultural areas. Generally, this data shows that the proposed area 
is less affected by marine air intrusions. The petitioners note that 
during times of marine air influence, the proposed San Antonio Valley 
viticultural area has a much greater temperature variance than the two 
existing viticultural areas where the marine air moderates the 
temperatures. They also note that on days with little marine air 
influence, the proposed area experiences less temperature variation 
than the two existing areas.
    Thus, the data submitted by the petitioners shows the climate in 
the proposed San Antonio Valley viticultural area to be significantly 
different in regard to temperature, wind, humidity, and degree day 
accumulations from surrounding existing viticultural areas. These 
differences, they contend, are a reflection of the proposed area's 
basin geography, making the grape growing environment in the proposed 
San Antonio Valley viticultural area unique relative to other Central 
Coast viticultural areas.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

    On May 19, 2005, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
regarding the establishment of the San Antonio Valley viticultural area 
in the Federal Register (70 FR 28865) as Notice No. 45. In that notice, 
TTB requested comments by July 18, 2005, from all interested persons. 
TTB received two comments in response to the notice.
    The first comment, from the Monterey County Vintners & Growers 
Association, supported the establishment of the new area, stating that 
its designation provides consumers with a better tool for 
distinguishing between the wine producing areas of Monterey County. The 
second comment, from Anthony

[[Page 33242]]

Riboli, owner of San Antonio Winery in Los Angeles, California, opposed 
the creation of the viticultural area. Mr. Riboli states that he 
believes consumers will confuse the viticultural area name with the 
name of his winery. He did not, however, submit any evidence to support 
this position. He also notes that he owns a trademark for the brand 
name ``San Antonio Winery.''
    TTB does not agree with the comment of Anthony Riboli that 
consumers will confuse the name of his winery, San Antonio Winery, with 
the name of the proposed viticultural area. The name ``San Antonio'' is 
a common place name that is used throughout the United States, most 
notably for the well-known city in Texas, and therefore we do not 
believe that consumers would specifically associate the name ``San 
Antonio Valley'' with Mr. Riboli's winery in Los Angeles. In addition, 
as we proposed in Notice No. 45, we will recognize only the entire name 
``San Antonio Valley'' as a name of viticultural significance upon 
establishment of the proposed viticultural area. Thus, the 
establishment of this viticultural area will have no impact on the San 
Antonio Winery's ability to use its brand name on its wine labels (See 
the Impact on Current Wine Labels discussion below).
    Furthermore, we do not believe that Mr. Riboli's trademark 
registration of the brand name ``San Antonio Winery'' has any bearing 
on this case. We believe the modifier ``valley'' within the name ``San 
Antonio Valley'' would sufficiently differentiate the viticultural area 
name from the San Antonio Winery name.
    Additionally, it has long been the position of TTB and its 
predecessor, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), that 
trademark registration of a name does not limit our authority to 
establish a viticultural area with the same or similar name. In T.D. 
ATF-278, which established the Wild Horse Valley viticultural area, ATF 
stated:

    It is not the policy of ATF to become involved in purely private 
disputes involving proprietary rights, such as trademark 
infringement suits. However, in the event a direct conflict arises 
between some or all of the rights granted by a registered trademark 
under the Lanham Act and the right to use the name of a viticultural 
area established under the FAA Act, it is the position of ATF that 
the rights applicable to the viticultural area should control. ATF 
believes that the evidence submitted by the petitioner establishes 
that the designation of the Wild Horse Valley viticultural area is 
in conformance with the laws and regulations. Accordingly, ATF finds 
that Federal registration of the term ``Wild Horse'' does not limit 
the Bureau's authority to establish a viticultural area known as 
``Wild Horse Valley.'' (See 53 FR 48244, November 30, 1988.)

    This policy on the relationship between trademarks and viticultural 
areas was upheld in Sociedad Anonima Vina Santa Rita v. Dept. of 
Treasury, 193F. Supp. 2nd 6 (D.D.C 2001). In that decision, the court 
held that ``while the Lanham Act affords Plaintiff certain rights and 
causes of action with respect to the use of its marks, the ATF's 
decision to approve the Santa Rita Hills [viticultural area] does not 
impede those rights.'' (See Santa Rita at 22.) In other words, by this 
rule, TTB is not creating a name but recognizing a pre-existing 
geographic fact.

TTB Finding

    After careful review of the San Antonio Valley viticultural area 
petition and the comments received, TTB finds that the evidence 
submitted supports the establishment of the proposed viticultural area. 
Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration 
Act and part 4 of our regulations, we establish the ``San Antonio 
Valley'' viticultural area in Monterey County, California, effective 30 
days from this document's publication date.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative boundary description of the viticultural area in 
the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

Maps

    The petitioners provided the required maps, and we list them below 
in the regulatory text.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a 
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true 
place of origin. With the establishment of this viticultural area and 
its inclusion in part 9 of the TTB regulations, its name, ``San Antonio 
Valley,'' is recognized as a name of viticultural significance. 
Consequently, wine bottlers using ``San Antonio Valley'' in a brand 
name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the 
origin of the wine, must ensure that the product is eligible to use the 
viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin.
    For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the 
name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, 
at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been 
grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet 
the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not 
eligible to use the viticultural area name as an appellation of origin 
and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in 
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain 
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name 
appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the 
bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.
    Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a 
viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label 
approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this regulation will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a 
viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and 
consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735). Therefore, it requires no 
regulatory assessment.

Drafting Information

    Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this 
document.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

The Regulatory Amendment

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter 1, 
part 9, as follows:

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec.  9.194 to read as follows:


Sec.  9.194  San Antonio Valley.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``San Antonio Valley''. For purposes of part 4

[[Page 33243]]

of this chapter, ``San Antonio Valley'' is a term of viticultural 
significance.
    (b) Approved Maps. The appropriate maps for determining the 
boundary of the San Antonio Valley viticultural area are ten United 
States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. They are 
titled:
    (1) Hames Valley, California, 1949, photorevised 1978;
    (2) Tierra Redonda Mountain, California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
    (3) Bradley, California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
    (4) Bryson, California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
    (5) Williams Hill, California, 1949, photorevised 1979;
    (6) Jolon, California, 1949;
    (7) Alder Peak, California, 1995;
    (8) Bear Canyon, California, 1949, photoinspected 1972;
    (9) Cosio Knob, California, 1949, photorevised 1984; and
    (10) Espinosa Canyon, California, 1949, photorevised 1979.
    (c) Boundary. The San Antonio Valley viticultural area is located 
in Monterey County, California. The boundary of the San Antonio Valley 
viticultural area is as described below:
    (1) The beginning point is at the southeast corner of section 14, 
T23S, R9E, on the Hames Valley map;
    (2) From the beginning point, proceed southeast in a straight line 
for approximately 5 miles across sections 24 and 25, T23S, R9E, and 
sections 30, 31, and 32, T23S, R10E, and section 5, T24S, R10E, to the 
southeast corner of section 5, on the Tierra Redonda Mountain map; then
    (3) Continue southeast in a straight line for approximately 3.25 
miles through sections 9, 16, 15, and 22, T24S, R10E, to the mid-point 
of the eastern boundary of section 22 on the Bradley map; then
    (4) Proceed straight south for approximately 2.5 miles along the 
eastern boundary line of sections 22, 27, and 34, T24S, R10E, to the 
Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line; then
    (5) Follow the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line west for 
approximately 7.0 miles, back onto the Tierra Redonda Mountain map, to 
the southwest corner of section 34, T24S, R9E; then
    (6) Proceed northwest in a straight line for approximately 17 
miles, crossing sections 33, 32, 29, 30, and 19, T24S, R9E, and 
sections 24, 13, 14, 10, 9, and 4, T24S, R8E, on the Bryson map, 
section 5, T24S, R8E in the southwest corner of the Williams Hill map, 
section 32, T23S, and sections 23, 22, 15, and 16, T23S, R7E, on the 
Jolon map, to an 1,890-foot peak located approximately 2,100 feet west 
of section 8, T23S, R7E; then
    (7) Continue northwest in a straight line for approximately 9 
miles, crossing the Alder Peak map between Milpitas Grant and Stony 
Valley, and sections 9, 4, and 5, T22S, R6E, on the Bear Canyon map, to 
a 2,713-foot peak located in section 5, T22S, R6E; then
    (8) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line for approximately 3.9 
miles, passing onto the Hunter Liggett Military Reservation and 
crossing the San Antonio River, to a 2,449-foot peak on the Hunter 
Liggett Military Reservation; then
    (9) Proceed northeast in a straight line for approximately 2.5 
miles, crossing Mission Creek, across sections 30 and 29, T21S, R7E, on 
the Cosio Knob map to the 2,530-foot peak of Cosio Knob; then
    (10) From Cosio Knob, proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 
approximately 9.5 miles across sections 29, 28, 27, 26, 35, and 36, 
T21S, R7E, sections 31 and 32, T21S, R8E, and sections 5, 4, 3, and 2, 
T22S, R8E, on the Espinosa Canyon map, to a 1,811-foot peak located in 
section 2; then
    (11) Proceed southeast in a straight line for approximately 10.4 
miles across sections 2, 11, 12, and 13, T22S, R8E, and sections 18 and 
19, T22S, R9E, on the Espinosa Canyon map, sections 19, 30, 29, 32, and 
33, T22S, R9E, on the northwest corner of the Williams Hill map, and 
sections 4, 3, 10, 11, and 14, T23S, R9E, on the Hames Valley map, to 
the beginning point at the southeast corner of section 14, T23S, R9E.

    Signed: March 6, 2006.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
    Approved: March 16, 2006.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. E6-8854 Filed 6-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P