Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49123

Immigration Reform and Control Act of that this change would lead to River Valley viticultural area proposed 1986 divided H–2 workers into two widespread fraud and expansion of 14,044 acres would categories: Temporary workers to misrepresentation. increase the size of that viticultural area perform agricultural labor or services A considerable number of to 169,028 acres. The Northern Sonoma (H–2A), and all other temporary workers commenters were in opposition to the viticultural area proposed expansion of (H–2B). In 1990, Congress attached a proposed change requiring that approximately 44,244 acres would limitation on the number of H–2B petitioners e-file a petition within 60 increase the size of that viticultural area workers, but otherwise the program has days in advance of the employment to 394,088 acres. We designate not significantly changed to need. Some raised concern that many viticultural areas to allow vintners to accommodate employers’ needs or to employers are not necessarily well- better describe the origin of their wines offer worker protections. After versed in the access and use of the and to allow consumers to better consulting with DOL and the Internet. identify wines they may purchase. We Department of State, and reviewing the • A significant number of comments invite comments on this proposed definitions and procedures used to were opposed to the proposal to change to our regulations. regulate the H–2B nonagricultural eliminate agents. Many commenters DATES: We must receive written temporary worker program, USCIS stressed that agents perform a vital comments on or before October 20, determined that the H–2B process function in the H–2B filing process on 2008. should be modified to reduce behalf of the employers who are not unnecessary burdens that hinder conversant with the applicable laws and ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses: petitioning employers’ ability to regulations related to the H–2B program. • effectively use this visa category. The • The majority of the comments http://www.regulations.gov (via the proposed rule was published on January stressed that the proposed changes online comment form for this notice as 27, 2005, with its intent being to would result in decreased protections posted within Docket No. TTB–2008– increase efficiency in the program by for U.S. workers and the likely 0009 at ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal e-rulemaking portal); or removing existing regulatory barriers. 70 proliferation of fraud within the • FR 3984. program. Director, Regulations and Rulings Based upon a review of the Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and II. Changes Contained in the Proposed rulemaking record as a whole, DHS has Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Rule decided to withdraw the January 27, Washington, DC 20044–4412. The most significant proposed change 2005, proposed rule and terminate the See the Public Participation section of was a migration to a one-stop associated proposed rulemaking action. this notice for specific instructions and attestation-based process whereby most DHS, therefore, will not publish specific requirements for submitting comments, U.S. employers seeking H–2B temporary responses to each comment. and for information on how to request workers would only be required to file a public hearing. one application, the Form I–129, IV. Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule You may view copies of this notice, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, For the reasons described in this selected supporting materials, and any with USCIS. The proposal would have document, DHS is withdrawing the comments we receive about this reduced the paper-based application proposed rule published on January 27, proposal at http://www.regulations.gov process by requiring that most Form I– 2005 (FR Doc. 05–1240, 70 FR 3984). within Docket No. TTB–2008–0009. A link to that docket is posted on the TTB 129 petitions be submitted to USCIS Dated: August 11, 2008. electronically through e-filing. The Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ Michael Chertoff, proposal would also have required e- wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice filed petitions to be filed not more than Secretary. No. 90. You also may view copies of this 60 days in advance of the employment [FR Doc. E8–19322 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] notice, all related petitions, maps or need. The proposed rule also would BILLING CODE 9111–97–P other supporting materials, and any have precluded agents from filing H–2B comments we receive about this petitions on behalf of the actual H–2B proposal by appointment at the TTB employer. Finally, the proposed rule DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Information Resource Center, 1310 G included additional changes to ensure Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. the integrity of the program through Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Please call 202–927–2400 to make an enforcement mechanisms. Bureau appointment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: III. Comments Received on the 27 CFR Part 9 Proposed Rule Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco [Notice No. 90; Docket No. TTB–2008–0009] Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and USCIS received 125 comments on the RIN 1513–AB57 Rulings Division, P.O. Box 18152, proposed rule during the 60-day Roanoke, VA 24014; telephone (540) comment period. The majority of the Proposed Expansions of the Russian 344–9333. commenters were opposed to many River Valley and Northern Sonoma SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: changes proposed in the rule. The Viticultural Areas (2008R–031P) comments are summarized as follows: Background on Viticultural Areas • There were a significant number of AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and TTB Authority negative comments regarding the Trade Bureau, Treasury. proposal to create a one-stop attestation- ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol based process. Some commenters stated Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 that the existing labor certification SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary process should remain with DOL and Trade Bureau proposes to expand of the Treasury to prescribe regulations because DOL, not USCIS, is directly the Russian River Valley and Northern for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, charged with the protection of U.S. Sonoma American viticultural areas in and malt beverages. The FAA Act workers. Some also expressed concern Sonoma County, California. The Russian requires that these regulations, among

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS 49124 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules

other things, prohibit consumer States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; Coast viticultural areas but not within deception and the use of misleading and the Northern Sonoma viticultural area. statements on labels, and ensure that • A copy of the appropriate USGS According to the petition, the proposed labels provide the consumer with map(s) with the proposed viticultural expansion area lies almost entirely adequate information as to the identity area’s boundary prominently marked. within the Russian River Valley and quality of the product. The Alcohol Russian River Valley Expansion watershed, is historically part of the and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Petition Russian River Valley, and shares all the (TTB) administers the regulations significant distinguishing features of the promulgated under the FAA Act. Gallo Family Vineyards submitted a Russian River Valley viticultural area. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR petition proposing a 14,044-acre Name Evidence part 4) allows the establishment of expansion of the established Russian definitive viticultural areas and the use River Valley viticultural area (27 CFR The petitioner states that the of their names as appellations of origin 9.66). The proposed expansion would proposed expansion area is widely on wine labels and in wine increase the established viticultural recognized as part of the Russian River advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB area’s acreage by approximately 9 watershed, a key criterion cited in past regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the percent, to 169,028 acres. The petitioner rulemaking documents regarding the list of approved viticultural areas. explains that approximately 550 acres of existing viticultural area. T.D. ATF–159 the proposed expansion area were states that the Russian River Valley Definition planted to grapes at the time of this viticultural area ‘‘includes those areas Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB petition. The petitioner’s Two Rock through which flow the Russian River or regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines Ranch Vineyard, with 350 acres planted some of its tributaries * * *.’’ Moreover, a viticultural area for American wine as to grapes, lies near the southern end of the petitioner contends that before the a delimited grape-growing region the proposed expansion area. establishment of the current viticultural distinguishable by geographical The Russian River Valley viticultural area boundary, the proposed expansion features, the boundaries of which have area is located approximately 50 miles area was commonly considered part of been recognized and defined in part 9 north of San Francisco in central the Russian River Valley. of the regulations. These designations Sonoma County, California. The The petitioner includes several pieces allow vintners and consumers to viticultural area was originally of evidence showing the expansion attribute a given quality, reputation, or established by Treasury Decision (T.D.) area’s inclusion in the Russian River other characteristic of a wine made from ATF–159, published in the Federal watershed. A submitted map shows that grapes grown in an area to its Register (48 FR 48813) on October 21, almost all the proposed expansion area geographic origin. The establishment of 1983. It was expanded by 767 acres in lies within the Russian River watershed viticultural areas allows vintners to T.D. TTB–7, published in the Federal (see ‘‘The California Interagency describe more accurately the origin of Register (68 FR 67370) on December 2, Watershed Map of 1999,’’ published by their wines to consumers and helps 2003, and again by 30,200 acres in T.D. the California Resources Agency, consumers to identify wines they may TTB–32, published in the Federal updated 2004). The petitioner notes that purchase. Establishment of a viticultural Register (70 FR 53299) on September 8, drainage is through the Laguna de Santa area is neither an approval nor an 2005. Although T.D. TTB–32 states that Rosa waterway beginning near the east endorsement by TTB of the wine after the 2005 expansion the viticultural side of the proposed expansion area and produced in that area. area covered 126,600 acres, the current flowing west and north through the petition provides information updating current viticultural area. Thus, the Requirements the present size of the viticultural area waterway provides a common Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB to a total of 154,984 acres. connection between the two areas. regulations outlines the procedure for The current Russian River Valley The petitioner includes an proposing an American viticultural area viticultural area, with the exception of informational brochure published by the and provides that any interested party its southern tip, lies within the Northern Russian River Watershed Association may petition TTB to establish a grape- Sonoma viticultural area (27 CFR 9.70). (RRWA), an association of local growing region as a viticultural area. The Northern Sonoma viticultural area, governments and districts that Petitioners may use the same procedure in turn, lies largely within the Sonoma coordinates regional programs to protect to request changes involving existing Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.116). or improve the quality of the Russian viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the The Northern Sonoma and Sonoma River watershed. A map in the brochure TTB regulations requires the petition to Coast viticultural areas are both entirely shows that the watershed comprises include— within the North Coast viticultural area both the current viticultural area and • Evidence that the proposed (27 CFR 9.30). the area covered by the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or The current Russian River Valley expansion. nationally known by the name specified viticultural area also entirely The petitioner submits a letter in in the petition; encompasses two smaller viticultural which the RRWA asks the California • Historical or current evidence that areas—in its northeastern corner, the Department of Transportation to place a supports setting the boundary of the Chalk Hill viticultural area (27 CFR sign marking the southern boundary of proposed viticultural area as the 9.52), and in the southwest, the Green the Russian River watershed at a point petition specifies; Valley of Russian River Valley on northbound Highway 101 near the • Evidence relating to the viticultural area (27 CFR 9.57). City of Cotati in Sonoma County, geographical features, such as climate, According to the petition, the California. This point is on the soils, elevation, and physical features proposed expansion would extend the southeastern boundary of the proposed that distinguish the proposed current viticultural area boundary south expansion area. The petitioner notes viticultural area from surrounding areas; and east, encompassing land just west of that the State has installed the requested • A description of the specific the cities of Rohnert Park and Cotati. sign and a sign at another point on the boundary of the proposed viticultural The proposed expansion area lies southern boundary of the proposed area, based on features found on United within the Sonoma Coast and North expansion area.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49125

Also submitted with the petition is Boundary Evidence coastline and cool breezes blow a fog bank in through the Petaluma Gap northward 2002 water assessment data published According to the petitioner, the 2005 by the U.S. Environmental Protection toward Santa Rosa and northwestward expansion created an artificial line for toward Sebastopol. This fog bank is Agency. This data includes the the southeast boundary. Proceeding accompanied by a rapid decrease in expansion area in its assessment of the south down the U.S. 101 corridor, it temperature which can be as much as 50 °F. Russian River watershed. Finally, the abruptly turns due west at Todd Road. petitioner includes a Russian River Additionally, the petitioner provides Consequently, on a map, the Russian an online article delineating the Valley area tourism map that River Valley viticultural area appears to encompasses the proposed expansion presence of fog in the proposed have had a ‘‘bite’’ taken out of its expansion area (‘‘Fog Noir,’’ by Rod area (see ‘‘Russian River Map,’’ (http:// southeastern corner despite the fact that russianrivertravel.com/)). Smith, September/October 2005 at it and the proposed expansion area http://www.privateclubs.com/Archives/ Several documents relating to the share common features of climate, soil, 2005-sept-oct/wine_fog-noir.htm. The agricultural and economic history of and watershed. article describes satellite images of fog Sonoma County were also submitted by The proposed expansion would moving through the Russian River the petitioner. The petitioner states that change the southeastern boundary of the Valley, as follows: they show that the proposed expansion current Russian River Valley viticultural area and the current viticultural area area. At a point where the current Until recently everyone assumed that the share a history of grape growing. For Russian River itself drew the fog inland and southern boundary now abruptly turns distributed it over the terrain west of Santa example, an 1893 survey compares the north, the proposed new boundary line Rosa. Supplemental fog, it was thought, also yields of individual grape growers in the would generally continue to follow the came in from the southwest over the marshy established viticultural area with those defining ridge on the southern flank of lowlands along the coast between Point of growers in the proposed expansion the Russian River watershed. It would Reyes and Bodega Bay—the so-called area (see ‘‘History of the Sonoma turn north at U.S. 101, eventually Petaluma Wind Gap. Viticultural District,’’ by Ernest P. meeting the southeast corner of the In fact, it now appears to be the other way Peninou, Nomis Press, 1998). The existing boundary, adding an area around. A new generation of satellite petitioner asserts that this document photography, sensitive enough to pick up almost entirely within the Russian River translucent layers of moist air near the clearly shows that growers in the two watershed. ground, shows for the first time the areas grew similar grape varieties under Distinguishing Features movement of the fog throughout the Russian similar growing conditions with similar River Valley region. yields. Climate * * * * * A letter from Robert Theiller Past rulemakings regarding the In Bobbitt’s snapshot, the fog pours, submitted with the petition describes Russian River Valley viticultural area literally pours, through the Petaluma Gap. the family-owned Xavier Theiller The ocean dumps it ashore and the inland have stated that coastal fog greatly heat sink reels it in * * *. Winery. The winery, now defunct, affects the area’s climate. T.D. TTB–32 operated in the proposed expansion area at 70 FR 53298 states, for example, that According to the petitioner, the from 1904 to 1938. According to Mr. ‘‘Fog is the single most unifying and proposed expansion area also has the Theiller, it crushed grapes from both the significant feature of the previously same ‘‘coastal cool’’ climate as the area encompassed by the current established Russian River Valley current Russian River Valley viticultural Russian River Valley viticultural area viticultural area.’’ The petitioner states area. T.D. ATF–159, T.D. TTB–7, and and the area covered by the proposed that the proposed expansion area lies T.D. TTB–32 refer to the Winkler expansion. The letter specifically states directly in the path of the fog that moves degree-day system, which classifies that ‘‘* * * people involved in grape from the ocean into southern and climatic regions for grape growing. In growing and other agriculture in the central Sonoma County; thus, the same the Winkler system, heat accumulation area of the winery knew that [the fog influences both the proposed is measured during the typical grape- proposed expansion area] was part of expansion area and the current growing season from April to October. the Russian River Valley.’’ viticultural area. Consequently, there is One degree day accumulates for each The petition also includes a letter no ‘‘fog line’’ dividing the current degree Fahrenheit that a day’s mean from wine historian William F. Heintz. viticultural area and the proposed temperature is above 50 degrees, the Mr. Heintz is the author of ‘‘Wine and expansion area, according to the minimum temperature required for Viticulture History of the Region Known petitioner. grapevine growth (see ‘‘General as the Russian River Appellation’’ The petitioner provides a report Viticulture,’’ Albert J. Winkler, (Russian River Valley Winegrowers, showing the effect of the fog on the University of California Press, 1974). As 1999). In his letter, Mr. Heintz writes: climate of the current viticultural area noted in T.D. ATF–159, the Russian I agree with the observation in your and proposed expansion area (see River Valley viticultural area is termed petition that the proposed expansion area ‘‘Sonoma County Climatic Zones,’’ Paul ‘‘coastal cool’’ and has an annual range and the main part of the Russian River Valley Vossen, University of California of 2,000 to 2,800 degree days. viticultural area, which lies to the north, Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma The petitioner concedes that the have historically been part of one region in County, 1986 (http:// ‘‘Sonoma County Climate Zones’’ report terms of common climate and geographic cesonoma.ucdavis.edu/)). The report cited above would place most of the features, settlement, and the development of describes the fog as passing through the proposed expansion area and part of the agriculture and transportation. For these Petaluma Gap and into the expansion 2005 expansion area within the reasons, I have always considered the area, as follows: ‘‘marine’’ zone, instead of the warmer proposed expansion area and the area to the coastal cool zone. However, the north that is in the current Russian River The major climatic influence in Sonoma petitioner argues that at the time of the Valley viticultural area to belong together. In County is determined by the marine (ocean) my opinion, the proposed expansion area is air flow and the effect of the geography 2005 expansion, TTB recognized that part of the same historical district as the diverting that air flow. During an average more current information had existing Russian River Valley viticultural summer there are many days when fog superseded the information in the 1986 area. maintains a band of cold air all around the report. Further, the petitioner argues

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS 49126 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules

that climate information included in the Using the Winkler system, the petitioner’s Two Rock Ranch Vineyard petition and presented below shows that petitioner provides a table that includes in the southern part of the proposed the proposed expansion area actually a complete degree day data set for the expansion area. The table is reproduced has a coastal cool climate. April through October growing season at below. seven vineyards, including the

AVERAGE GROWING SEASON 1983–2005 [The 2005 expansion used 2001 climate data]

Annual degree Vineyard days Establishment of area

Osley West ...... 2,084 2005 expansion. Two Rock Ranch ...... 2,227 Proposed expansion. Bloomfield ...... 2,332 2005 expansion. Laguna Ranch ...... 2,403 1983 establishment. Osley East ...... 2,567 2005 expansion. MacMurray Ranch ...... 2,601 1983 establishment. Le Carrefour ...... 2,636 2005 expansion.

The petitioner states that the table consultant, has extensive experience in plain is consistent with the portion of shows that all seven vineyards, Sonoma County viticulture. the current Russian River Valley including the Two Rock Ranch in the Mr. Shabram disputes the idea that viticultural area that wraps around both proposed expansion area, fall within the the proposed expansion area is in a the west and north sides of the proposed coastal cool climate range of 2,000 to marine climate zone. Mr. Shabram cites expansion. Elevations in the proposed 2,800 annual degree days. The three main factors in support of a expansion area range from 715 feet petitioner notes the consistency of the determination that the climate zone of down to 75 feet above sea level. They degree day data for the 1983 the proposed expansion area is not are similar to those in adjoining areas of establishment of the viticultural area, marine. First, successful viticulture the current Russian River Valley the 2005 expansion, and the current would not be possible in a true marine viticultural area. proposed expansion. The petitioner zone because of insufficient solar Soils and Geology states that the degree day data in the radiation. Second, the proposed table shows that the proposed expansion area is well inland as The petitioner discusses the expansion area has the same climate as compared to the rest of the marine zone; similarities between the soils of the the current Russian River Valley climatic conditions in the proposed proposed expansion area and those of viticultural area. Further, the petitioner expansion area would not be the current viticultural area based on a provides a raster map showing that characteristic of a marine zone. Finally, soil association map (see ‘‘Soil Survey annual average degree days in the Mr. Shabram states that the petitioner’s of Sonoma County, California,’’ online, proposed expansion area are within the climate data (summarized above) issued by the U.S. Department of same range as much of the existing ‘‘* * * clearly demonstrates that the Agriculture, Natural Resources viticultural area (see ‘‘Growing Degree area should be classified as ‘Coastal Conservation Service (http:// Days’’ for Sonoma County (1951–80 Cool,’ rather than the Marine climate websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/)). The average), published by the Spatial type.’’ soils on the Merced Hills included in Climate Analysis Service, Oregon State Mr. Shabram provided the petitioner the proposed expansion area formed University (http:// with a map that depicts all the proposed mainly in sandstone rocks of the www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/index.html)). expansion area as belonging to the underlying Wilson Grove formation. coastal cool zone (see ‘‘Revised Sonoma This formation is characterized by low The petitioner notes that the annual County Climatic Zones of the Russian lying, rolling hills beginning just south average number of hours between 70 River Valley Area,’’ by Patrick L. of the Russian River near Forestville, and 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the Shabram, 2007, based on ‘‘Sonoma arching southeast through Sebastopol, April through October growing season County Climatic Zones’’ and ‘‘Revised and ending at Penngrove. It formed 3 to for 1996–98 at the Two Rock Ranch Coastal Cool/Marine Climate Zones 5 million years ago under a shallow sea. Vineyard was 940 hours. Based on the Boundary,’’ by Patrick L. Shabram). According to the petitioner, the soils ‘‘Sonoma County Climatic Zones’’ map, underlain by this formation are well this average lies within the 800- to 1100- Topography and Elevation suited to growing grapes in vineyards. hour range that characterizes the coastal According to the petitioner, the The petitioner provides the following cool zone. The marine zone has fewer southernmost portion of the proposed quotation discussing the suitability of than 800 hours between 70 and 90 expansion area is on the ‘‘Merced Hills’’ the soils to growing grapes in the degrees Fahrenheit during the growing of the Wilson Grove formation. These proposed expansion area: season. are gently rolling hills dominantly on 5 The sandy loam soils of the apple-growing The petitioner submits a report, to 30 percent slopes. The current region of Gold Ridge-Sebastopol form as a written at the request of the petitioner, Russian River Valley viticultural area direct result of breakdown of Wilson Grove that includes a detailed analysis of the does not encompass these hills; the rock. The low ridge running from Forestville climate of the proposed expansion area. proposed expansion area includes a to Sebastopol and south to Cotati is the classic terroir of this association, now being The petitioner requested expert portion of them. recognized as prime land and climate for commentary on the proposed expansion The northern portion of the proposed Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. (‘‘Diverse area and states that the report’s author, expansion area comprises the Geology/Soils Impact Wine Quality,’’ by Patrick L. Shabram, geographic essentially flat Santa Rosa Plain. The Terry Wright, Professor of Geology, Sonoma

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49127

State University, Practical Winery & association is further north in the viticultural area and the proposed Vineyard, September/October 2001, Vol. proposed expansion area. The soils of expansion area. Brix is the quantity of XXIII, No. 2.) this association are somewhat poorly dissolved solids in grape juice, The petitioner notes that the Wilson drained to well drained, nearly level to expressed as grams of sucrose in 100 Grove formation underlies the current strongly sloping loams to silty loams on grams of solution at 60 degrees Russian River Valley viticultural area, low bench terraces and alluvial fans. Fahrenheit (see 27 CFR 24.10); thus, but the current southeastern border cuts They are common in the middle and Brix is the percent of sugar by weight. north to south through the formation, northern portions of the Santa Rosa Citing a brochure published by the midway between Sebastopol and Cotati. plain. They are predominant in the Russian River Winegrowers Association, eastern portion of the current Russian However, the soil associations on either the petitioner notes that Pinot Noir and River Valley viticultural area, including side of the southeastern border of the Chardonnay are the two most prominent the city of Santa Rosa, and in the current Russian River Valley viticultural grape varieties grown in the established area are identical. The Goldridge-Cotati- proposed expansion area. The petitioner notes that the ‘‘Soil Russian River Valley viticultural area. Sebastopol soil association is nearly Survey of Sonoma County, California’’ The successful cultivation of the Pinot continuous throughout the formation. soil association map cited above shows Noir grape, in particular, has been The petitioner reports that areas of that the current viticultural area considered a hallmark of the Russian Sebastopol sandy loam are in the boundary arbitrarily cuts directly River Valley viticultural area, and the Laguna Ranch Vineyard just north of the through four major soil associations: Pinot Gris grape variety recently has town of Sebastopol (in the current Goldridge-Cotati-Sebastopol, Clear Lake- been growing in popularity. viticultural area) and also in the Two Reyes, Steinbeck-Los Osos, and Rock Ranch Vineyard in the proposed Data submitted with the petition Huichica-Wright-Zamora. The soils and expansion area, just west of the town of shows the 4-year average Brix the geology in the proposed expansion comparisons for the period 2003–6 for Cotati. area are nearly identical to those in the the Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, and Pinot The petitioner states that the Clear adjacent areas of the current Russian Gris varieties among three vineyards in Lake-Reyes association is in the portion River Valley viticultural area. of the proposed expansion area north of TTB notes that T.D. ATF–159, which the current Russian River Valley the Merced Hills. The soils in this established the Russian River Valley viticultural area and the Two Rock association are poorly drained, nearly viticultural area, does not identify any Ranch Vineyard in the proposed level to gently sloping clays and clay predominant soils or indicate any expansion area (see table below). The loams in basins. They are in the unique soils of the viticultural area. petitioner asserts that the Brix levels for southeast portion of the Santa Rosa each variety at all of the vineyards are plain and also in pockets further north, Grape Brix Comparison very similar, reflecting similar growing almost directly west of the city of Santa The petitioner compares Brix for conditions for the grapes. Rosa. The Huichica-Wright-Zamora grapes grown in both the current

2003–6 AVERAGE BRIX FOR SOME WINEGRAPES GROWN ON RANCHES IN THE CURRENT VITICULTURAL AREA AND THE PROPOSED VITICULTURAL AREA

Average Brix Ranch Pinot Noir Chardonnay Pinot Gris

Laguna North ...... 25.04 23.79 ...... Del Rio ...... 26.69 23.24 24.68 MacMurray ...... 25.77 ...... 24.71 Two Rock* ...... 25.80 23.55 24.14 * Located in the proposed viticultural area.

In addition to the petition evidence correspondence generally asserts that Northern Sonoma Expansion summarized above, the petition the proposed expansion area falls TTB notes that the current boundaries includes six letters of support from area outside the coastal fog line and thus has of the Russian River Valley viticultural grape growers and winery owners. The a different climate than that of the area and of the Green Valley of Russian supporters generally state their belief current viticultural area. The opponents that the proposed expansion area has River Valley viticultural area (which lies of the proposed expansion are mostly entirely within the Russian River Valley the same grape growing conditions as vineyard or winery owners from the the current Russian River Valley area) extend beyond the Northern current viticultural area. Several of them Sonoma viticultural area boundary to viticultural area. The petition also state that even though grapes grown in includes a ‘‘Petition of Support: Russian the south and southeast; in the case of the proposed expansion area ‘‘may the Russian River Valley viticultural River Valley AVA Expansion’’ with 208 eventually be brought to similar Brix, signatures. area, this was as a result of the 30,200- pH and total acidity maturity, the bloom acre, 2005 expansion approved in T.D. Opposition to the Proposed Expansion and harvest dates are much later than in TTB–32. The currently proposed Prior to and during review of the the Russian River Valley.’’ TTB, while 14,044-acre expansion of the Russian petition for the proposed expansion, noting this opposing correspondence, River Valley viticultural area similarly TTB received by mail, facsimile also notes that the assertions in the is outside the boundary line of the transmission, and e-mail more than 50 correspondence were not accompanied Northern Sonoma viticultural area. pieces of correspondence opposing the by any specific data that contradicts the TTB also proposes in this document petitioner’s proposed expansion. The petitioner’s submitted evidence. a southern and southeastern expansion

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS 49128 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules

of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area of ‘‘Northern Sonoma’’ as a geographical boundary line to that of the expanded boundary line to encompass all of the term, a Web search for ‘‘Southern Russian River Valley viticultural area Russian River Valley viticultural area, Sonoma County’’ did disclose specific merits consideration and public including the currently proposed geographical data. The Southern comment. Sonoma County Resource Conservation expansion of the Russian River Valley Boundary Description viticultural area, so that all of the District (SCC–RCD) Web site has Russian River Valley viticultural area Sonoma County maps and describes the See the narrative boundary would again fall within the Northern district as including the ‘‘southern descriptions of the petitioned-for Sonoma viticultural area, as was the slopes of Mecham Hill’’ (alternative expansion of the Russian River Valley case prior to the 2005 expansion. The spelling of ‘‘Meacham,’’ as on the USGS viticultural area and the TTB-proposed Northern Sonoma viticultural area map), as the northern portion of the expansion of the Northern Sonoma would increase in size by 44,244 acres Petaluma River watershed in southern viticultural area in the proposed § 9.66 to 394,088 acres, or by 9 percent. The Sonoma County. Meacham Hill, and § 9.70 regulatory text amendments following information is provided in according to the USGS Cotati map, lies published at the end of this notice. support of this proposed expansion. 1.25 miles southeast of the area Maps included in the expansion of the Name and Boundary Evidence Northern Sonoma viticultural area The petitioner provided the required The Northern Sonoma viticultural proposed in this document. Further, the map to document the proposed area was established on May 17, 1985, SCC–RCD maps show that the southern expansion of the Russian River Valley by T.D. ATF–204 (50 FR 20560), which Sonoma County watershed excludes the viticultural area, and we list it below in stated at 50 FR 20562: Gold Ridge District, which comprises the proposed § 9.66 regulatory text much of the Russian River watershed, amendment. TTB relied on maps * * * Six approved viticultural areas are provided for the 2005 expansion of the located entirely within the Northern Sonoma including the Russian River Valley viticultural area as follows: Chalk Hill, viticultural area and the area proposed Russian River Valley viticultural area Alexander Valley, Sonoma County Green in this document to be added to it. and the map provided by the petitioner Valley [subsequently renamed Green Valley Sonoma County Relocation, a real for the current expansion to document of Russian River Valley], Dry Creek Valley, estate service, defines southern Sonoma the boundary description for the Russian River Valley, and Knights Valley. County as extending south from the proposed expansion of the Northern The Sonoma County Green Valley and town of Penngrove. According to the Sonoma viticultural area. A revised and Chalk Hill areas are each entirely within the expanded list of maps is included in the Russian River Valley area. The boundaries of USGS Cotati map, Penngrove lies 2.4 miles east-southeast of the proposed proposed § 9.70 regulatory text the Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley, amendment. Russian River Valley, and Knights Valley expansion of the Northern Sonoma areas all fit perfectly together dividing viticultural area boundary line. The City Impact on Current Wine Labels northern Sonoma County into four large of Petaluma, the southernmost large The proposed expansions of the areas. The Northern Sonoma area uses all of population center in Sonoma County, the outer boundaries of those four areas with Russian River Valley and Northern lies 6 miles southeast of the proposed Sonoma viticultural areas will not affect the exception of an area southwest of the Dry expansion to the Northern Sonoma Creek Valley area and west of the Russian currently approved wine labels. The River Valley area. viticultural area. approval of this proposed expansion Based on the above, we believe it is may allow additional vintners to use The originally established Northern reasonable to conclude that the name ‘‘Russian River Valley’’ or ‘‘Northern Sonoma viticultural area was expanded ‘‘Northern Sonoma’’, as distinct from Sonoma’’ as an appellation of origin on by T.D. ATF–233, published in the southern Sonoma County, includes all their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB Federal Register on August 26, 1986 (51 of the Russian River Valley viticultural regulations prohibits any label reference FR 30352) and, again, by T.D. ATF–300, area, including the proposed expansion published in the Federal Register on on a wine that indicates or implies an of that area that is the subject of this origin other than the wine’s true place August 9, 1990 (55 FR 32400). document. The current southern portion of the of origin. For a wine to be eligible to use boundary line of the Northern Sonoma Distinguishing Features a viticultural area name as an viticultural area, west to east, follows According to the USGS Sonoma appellation of origin or a term of California State Highway 12 from its County topographical map, the viticultural significance in a brand intersection with Bohemian Highway, topography of the area that would be name, at least 85 percent of the wine through the town of Sebastopol, to its included in the proposed expansion of must be derived from grapes grown intersection with Fulton Road. Although the Northern Sonoma viticultural area within the area represented by that T.D. ATF–204 does not explain the basis has only a few gently rolling hills and name or term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR for the choice of California State ridges in the large region known as 4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine Highway 12 as the southern portion of ‘‘Cotati Valley.’’ The topography of the has a brand name containing a the Northern Sonoma boundary line, expansion area mirrors the valley terrain viticultural area name or other TTB notes that at that time California that is to its north and that is within the viticulturally significant term that was State Highway 12 also formed the original boundary line. southern portion of the boundary line of used as a brand name on a label the Russian River Valley viticultural TTB Determinations approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 area. TTB concludes that the petition to CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. T.D. ATF–204 included information expand the 155,024-acre Russian River Public Participation regarding the geographical meaning of Valley viticultural area by 14,044 acres ‘‘Northern Sonoma’’ as distinct from the merits consideration and public Comments Invited rest of Sonoma County. Although a Web comment, as invited in this notice. TTB We invite comments from interested search conducted by TTB failed to also concludes that the expansion of the members of the public on whether we disclose conclusive information Northern Sonoma viticultural area to should expand the Russian River Valley regarding current nonviticultural usage conform its southern and southeastern viticultural area as described above. We

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49129

specifically request comment on the title. If you comment via The proposed regulation imposes no similarity of the proposed expansion Regulations.gov, please enter the new reporting, recordkeeping, or other area to the current Russian River Valley entity’s name in the ‘‘Organization’’ administrative requirement. Any benefit viticultural area. In particular, we blank of the online comment form. If derived from the use of a viticultural would like comments on the climate of you comment via postal mail, please area name would be the result of a the proposed Russian River Valley submit your entity’s comment on proprietor’s efforts and consumer viticultural area expansion area as letterhead. acceptance of wines from that area. compared to that of the current You may also write to the Therefore, no regulatory flexibility viticultural area and on the placement Administrator before the comment analysis is required. of the boundary lines for the proposed closing date to ask for a public hearing. expansion. The Administrator reserves the right to Executive Order 12866 We also invite comments on the determine whether to hold a public This proposed rule is not a significant proposed expansion to the Northern hearing. regulatory action as defined by Sonoma viticultural area as described in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it Confidentiality this document. Specifically, we are requires no regulatory assessment. interested in comments that address this All submitted comments and proposed expansion as it relates to the attachments are part of the public record Drafting Information 2005 expansion and to the current and subject to disclosure. Do not Jennifer Berry drafted this notice. proposed expansion of the Russian enclose any material in your comments Other staff members of the Regulations River Valley viticultural area. that you consider to be confidential or and Rulings Division contributed to the Whether in favor of, or in opposition inappropriate for public disclosure. notice. to, either of the proposed expansions, Public Disclosure List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 you should support any comments made with specific data or other We will post, and you may view, Wine. copies of this notice, selected appropriate information about the name, Proposed Regulatory Amendment proposed boundaries, or distinguishing supporting materials, and any online or features of the proposed expansion area. mailed comments we receive about this For reasons discussed in the proposal within Docket No. TTB–2008– preamble, we propose to amend title 27, Submitting Comments 0009 on the Federal e-rulemaking chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal You may submit comments on this portal, Regulations.gov, at http:// Regulations, as follows: notice by using one of the following two www.regulations.gov. A direct link to methods: that docket is available on the TTB Web PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ AREAS _ may send comments via the online wine rulemaking.shtml under Notice 1. The authority citation for part 9 comment form posted with this notice No. 90. You may also reach the relevant continues to read as follows: within Docket No. TTB–2008–0009 on docket through the Regulations.gov ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal e- search page at http:// Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. rulemaking portal, at http:// www.regulations.gov. For instructions Subpart C—Approved American www.regulations.gov. A direct link to on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the Viticultural Areas that docket is available under Notice site and click on ‘‘User Guide’’ under No. 90 on the TTB Web site at http:// ‘‘How to Use this Site.’’ 2. Section 9.66 is amended: www.ttb.gov/wine/ All posted comments will display the a. In paragraph (b), by removing the wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental commenter’s name, organization (if word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph files may be attached to comments any), city, and State, and, in the case of (b)(9), by removing the word ‘‘, and’’ at submitted via Regulations.gov. For mailed comments, all address the end of paragraph (b)(10) and adding, complete instructions on how to use information, including e-mail addresses. in its place, a semicolon, by removing Regulations.gov, visit the site and click We may omit voluminous attachments the period at the end of paragraph on ‘‘User Guide’’ under ‘‘How to Use or material that we consider unsuitable (b)(11) and adding, in its place, the this Site.’’ for posting. word ‘‘and’’ preceded by a semicolon, • U.S. Mail: You may send comments You also may view copies of this and by adding a new paragraph (b)(12); via postal mail to the Director, notice, all related petitions, maps and and Regulations and Rulings Division, other supporting materials, and any b. In paragraph (c), by revising Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade electronic or mailed comments we paragraphs (c)(15) through (c)(19), by Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, receive about this proposal by redesignating paragraphs (c)(20) through DC 20044–4412. appointment at the TTB Information (c)(34) as paragraphs (c)(26) through Please submit your comments by the Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., (c)(40), and by adding new paragraphs closing date shown above in this notice. Washington, DC 20220. You may also (c)(20) through (c)(25). Your comments must reference Notice obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 11- The additions and revision read as No. 90 and include your name and inch page. Contact our information follows: mailing address. Your comments also specialist at the above address or by must be made in English, be legible, and telephone at 202–927–2400 to schedule § 9.66 Russian River Valley. be written in language acceptable for an appointment or to request copies of * * * * * public disclosure. We do not comments or other materials. (b) * * * acknowledge receipt of comments, and (12) Cotati Quadrangle, California— we consider all comments as originals. Regulatory Flexibility Act Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 1954, If you are commenting on behalf of an We certify that this proposed Photorevised 1980. association, business, or other entity, regulation, if adopted, would not have (c ) * * * your comment must include the entity’s a significant economic impact on a (15) Proceed southeast 0.5 mile, name as well as your name and position substantial number of small entities. crossing over the end of an unnamed,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS 49130 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules

unimproved dirt road to an unnamed (b) Approved Maps. The nine United intersection with an unnamed medium 524-foot elevation peak, T6N, R8W, on States Geological Survey (USGS) maps duty road at BM 375, T6N, R9W. the Two Rock map. used to determine the boundary of the (6) The boundary follows a straight (16) Proceed southeast 0.75 mile in a Northern Sonoma viticultural area are line southeast 0.6 mile to an unnamed straight line to the intersection of an titled: 610-foot elevation peak, 1.5 miles unnamed unimproved dirt road (leading (1) Sonoma County, California, scale southwest of Canfield School, T6N, to four barn-like structures) and an 1:100 000, 1970; R9W. unnamed medium-duty road (known (2) Asti Quadrangle, California, scale (7) The boundary follows a straight locally as Roblar Road), T6N, R8W, on 1:24 000, 1959, Photorevised 1978; line east-southeast 0.75 mile to an the Two Rock map. (3) Jimtown Quadrangle, California— unnamed 641-foot elevation peak 1.4 (17) Proceed south 0.5 mile to an Sonoma County; scale 1:24 000, 1955, miles south-southwest of Canfield unnamed 678-foot elevation peak just Photorevised 1975; School, T6N, R9W. slightly north of the intersection of T5N (4) Camp Meeker Quadrangle, (8) The boundary follows a straight and T6N, R8W, on the Two Rock map. California—Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, line northeast 0.85 mile to its (18) Proceed east-southeast 0.8 mile to 1954, Photorevised 1971; intersection with an unnamed an unnamed peak with a 599-foot (5) Valley Ford Quadrangle, intermittent stream and Canfield Road; elevation, T5N, R8W, on the Two Rock California, scale 1:24 000, 1954, then continues on the straight line map. Photorevised 1971; northeast 0.3 mile to its intersection (19) Proceed east-southeast 0.7 mile to (6) Two Rock Quadrangle, California, with the common Ranges 8 and 9 line, an unnamed peak with a 604-foot scale 1:24 000, 1954, Photorevised 1971; just west of an unnamed unimproved elevation, T5N, R8W, on the Two Rock (7) Cotati Quadrangle, California— dirt road, T6N. map. Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 1954, (9) The boundary follows a straight (20) Proceed east-southeast 0.9 mile to Photorevised 1980; line southeast 0.5 mile, crossing over the intersection of a short, unnamed (8) Santa Rosa Quadrangle, the end of an unnamed, unimproved light-duty road leading past a group of California—Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, dirt road to an unnamed 524-foot barn-like structures and a medium duty 1954, Photorevised 1980; and elevation peak, T6N, R8W. (10) The boundary follows a straight road known locally as Meacham Road, (9) Mark West Springs Quadrangle, line southeast 0.75 mile to the and cross onto the Cotati map T5N, California, scale 1:24 000, 1993. R8W. intersection of an unnamed unimproved (c) Boundary. The Northern Sonoma (21) Proceed north-northeast 0.75 mile dirt road (leading to four barn-like viticultural area is located in Sonoma to the intersection of Meacham and structures) and an unnamed medium- County, California. The boundary Stony Point Roads, T5N, R8W, on the duty road (known locally as Roblar description includes (in parentheses) Cotati map. Road), T6N, R8W. the local names of roads that are not (22) Proceed southeast 1.1 miles along (11) The boundary follows a straight identified by name on the map. Stony Point Road to the point where the line south 0.5 mile to an unnamed 678- (1) The beginning point is on the 200-foot elevation contour line foot elevation peak, T6N, R8W. intersects Stony Point Road, T5N, R8W, USGS Sonoma County, California, map (12) The boundary follows a straight on the Cotati map. in the town of Monte Rio at the line east-southeast 0.8 mile to an (23) Proceed north-northeast 0.5 mile intersection of the Russian River and a unnamed peak with a 599-foot to the point where an unnamed secondary highway (Bohemian elevation, T5N, R8W. intermittent stream intersects U.S. 101 Highway); (13) The boundary follows a straight (and to the point where the land grant (2) The boundary follows this line east-southeast 0.7 mile to an line also crosses), T5N, R8W, on the secondary highway (Bohemian unnamed peak with a 604-foot Cotati map. Highway), southeasterly parallel to elevation, T5N, R8W. (24) Proceed north 4.25 miles along Dutch Bill Creek, through the towns of (14) The boundary follows a straight U.S. 101 to the point where Santa Rosa Camp Meeker, Occidental, and line east-southeast 0.9 mile, onto the Avenue exits U.S. 101 (approximately Freestone, and then northeasterly to its Cotati map, to the intersection of a 0.5 mile north of the Wilfred Avenue intersection with an unnamed short, unnamed light-duty road leading overpass) T6N, R8W, on the Cotati map. secondary highway, known locally as past a group of barn-like structures and (25) Proceed north 1.1 miles along Bodega Road (also designated as State a medium duty road known locally as Santa Rosa Avenue to its intersection Highway 12), at BM 214, as shown on Meacham Road, T5N, R8W. with Todd Road, crossing onto the Santa the Valley Ford Quadrangle map. (15) The boundary follows Meacham Rosa map, T6N, R8W, on the Santa Rosa (3) The boundary follows Bodega Road north-northeast 0.75 mile to its map. Road (State Highway 12) northeasterly intersection with Stony Point Road, * * * * * 0.9 miles on the Valley Ford map; then T5N, R8W. 3. Section 9.70 is amended: onto the Camp Meeker map to its (16) The boundary follows Stony a. By revising paragraph (b); and intersection, at BM 486, with Jonive Point Road southeast 1.1 miles to the b. In paragraph (c), by revising the Road to the north and an unnamed light point where the 200-foot elevation introductory text and paragraphs (c)(1) duty road to the south (Barnett Valley contour line intersects Stony Point through (c)(5), by redesignating Road), T6N, R9W, on the Camp Meeker Road, T5N, R8W. paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(26) as map. (17) The boundary follows a straight paragraphs (c)(23) through (c)(43), and (4) The boundary follows Barnett line north-northeast 0.5 mile to the by adding new paragraphs (c)(6) through Valley Road south 2.2 miles, then east point where an unnamed intermittent (c)(22). crossing over the Valley Ford map and stream intersects U.S. 101 (and to the The revisions and addition read as onto the Two Rock map, to its point where the Roblar de la Miseria follows: intersection with Burnside Road, land grant line crosses), T5N, R8W. section 17, T6N, R9W. (18) The boundary follows U.S. Route § 9.70 Northern Sonoma. (5) The boundary follows Burnside 101 north 4.25 miles to the point where * * * * * Road southeast 3.3 miles to its Santa Rosa Avenue exits U.S. Route 101

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49131

to the east (approximately 0.5 mile DATES: Comments and related material You may submit your comments and north of the Wilfred Avenue overpass) must reach the Coast Guard on or before material by electronic means, mail, fax, T6N, R8W. October 20, 2008. or delivery to the Docket Management (19) The boundary follows Santa Rosa ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; Avenue north 1.1 miles to its identified by Coast Guard docket but please submit your comments and intersection with Todd Road, crossing number USCG–2008–0497 to the Docket material by only one means. If you on to the Santa Rosa map, T6N, R8W. Management Facility at the U.S. submit them by mail or delivery, submit (20) The boundary follows Santa Rosa Department of Transportation. To avoid them in an unbound format, no larger Avenue generally north 5.8 miles, duplication, please use only one of the than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for eventually becoming Mendocino following methods: copying and electronic filing. If you Avenue, to its intersection with an (1) Online: http:// submit them by mail and would like to unnamed secondary road, locally www.regulations.gov. know that they reached the Facility, known as Bicentennial Way, 0.3 mile (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility please enclose a stamped, self-addressed north-northwest of BM 161 on (M–30), U.S. Department of postcard or envelope. We will consider Mendocino Avenue, section 11, T7N, Transportation, West Building Ground all comments and material received R8W. Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey during the comment period. We may (21) The boundary follows a straight Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– change this proposed rule in view of line north 2.5 miles crossing over the 0001. them. 906-foot elevation peak in section 35, (3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on Viewing Comments and Documents T8N, R8W, crossing onto the Mark West the Ground Floor of the West Building, Springs map, to its intersection with 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., To view comments, as well as Mark West Springs Road and the Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. documents mentioned in this preamble meandering 280-foot elevation line in and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, as being available in the docket, go to section 26, T6N, R8W. except Federal holidays. The telephone http://www.regulations.gov at any time. (22) The boundary follows the number is 202–366–9329. Enter the docket number for this unnamed secondary highway, Mark (4) Fax: 202–493–2251. rulemaking (USCG–2008–0497) in the West Springs Road, on the Sonoma Search box, and click ‘‘Go >>.’’ You may FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If County map, generally north and east, also visit either the Docket Management you have questions on this proposed eventually turning into Porter Road and Facility in Room W12–140 on the rule, call Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander then to Petrified Forest Road, passing ground floor of the DOT West Building, (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 BM 545, the town of Mark West Springs, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, BM 495, and the Petrified Forest area, to Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail its intersection with the Sonoma and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, [email protected]. County-Napa County line. except Federal holidays; or, Commander If you have questions on viewing or (dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 * * * * * submitting material to the docket, call Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, Signed: August 13, 2008. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday Vicky McDowell, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– through Friday, except Federal holidays. Acting Administrator. 9826. [FR Doc. E8–19327 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Privacy Act BILLING CODE 4810–31–P Public Participation and Request for Anyone can search the electronic Comments form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND We encourage you to participate in individual submitting the comment (or SECURITY this rulemaking by submitting signing the comment, if submitted on comments and related materials. All behalf of an association, business, labor Coast Guard comments received will be posted, union, etc.). You may review the without change, to http:// Department of Transportation’s Privacy 33 CFR Part 110 www.regulations.gov and will include Act Statement in the Federal Register [Docket No. USCG–2008–0497] any personal information you have published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR provided. We have an agreement with 19477), or you may visit http:// RIN 1625–AA01 the Department of Transportation (DOT) DocketsInfo.dot.gov. to use the Docket Management Facility. Special Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’, Boston Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’ Public Meeting Harbor, MA paragraph below. We do not now plan to hold a public AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Submitting Comments meeting. But you may submit a request ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. for one to the Docket Management If you submit a comment, please Facility at the address under ADDRESSES SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to include the docket number for this explaining why one would be increase the size of the Boston Inner rulemaking (USCG–2008–0497), beneficial. If we determine that one Harbor Special Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’ at indicate the specific section of this would aid this rulemaking, we will hold the entrance to Fort Point Channel in document to which each comment one at a time and place announced by Boston Harbor, Boston, MA at the applies, and give the reason for each a later notice in the Federal Register. request of the Boston Harbormaster and comment. We recommend that you the Boston Harbor Yacht Club. This include your name and a mailing Background and Purpose action will provide additional address, an e-mail address, or a phone In 1982, three anchorages were anchorage space and provide a safe and number in the body of your document established in response to a request by secure anchorage for vessels of not more so that we can contact you if we have the Boston Harbormaster. These three than 65 feet in length. questions regarding your submission. anchorages were designated Boston

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:35 Aug 19, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM 20AUP1 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS