60968 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

the 1,452-foot elevation point, and approximately 1 mile to the road’s unnamed intermittent stream, Paso de continue south-southwesterly in a intersection with State Route 46; then Robles Land Grant; then straight line approximately 0.3 mile to (19) Proceed east on State Route 46 (30) Proceed southeasterly and then the intersection of two light-duty roads approximately 0.15 mile to the road’s easterly (downstream) along the locally known as S. El Pomar Road and intersection with an unnamed light-duty unnamed intermittent stream Homestead Road, Asuncion Land Grant; road locally known as Hidden Valley approximately 1.4 miles to the stream’s then Road, Paso de Robles Land Grant; then intersection with an unnamed light-duty (9) Proceed west-southwesterly in a (20) Proceed southeasterly and then road known locally as S. Vine Street, straight line approximately 1.1 miles to easterly on Hidden Valley Road just west of the U.S. 101/State Route 46 the point where an unnamed light-duty approximately 2.2 miles, crossing onto interchange, Paso de Robles Land Grant; road locally known as Templeton Road the Templeton map, to the road’s then intersects with an unnamed intermittent intersection with an unnamed light-duty (31) Proceed northerly along S. Vine stream (where Templeton Road makes a road locally known as Vineyard Drive, Street (which generally parallels U.S. 90 degree turn at its junction with two Paso de Robles Land Grant; then 101) approximately 1.8 miles to the unnamed unimproved roads), Asuncion (21) Proceed east on Vineyard Drive street’s intersection with the marked Land Grant; then approximately 0.85 mile to the road’s city of Paso Robles Corporate Boundary (10) Proceed westerly (downstream) intersection with an unnamed light-duty line (concurrent with the locally-known along the unnamed intermittent stream road locally known as S. Bethel Road, intersection of S. Vine and 1st Streets), approximately 0.5 mile to the stream’s Paso de Robles Land Grant; then Paso de Robles Land Grant; then confluence with the Salinas River, (22) Proceed north-northeasterly on S. (32) Proceed east along the marked Asuncion Land Grant; then Bethel Road and then N. Bethel Road city of Paso Robles Corporate Boundary (11) Proceed westerly (downstream) approximately 1.7 miles to the road’s line (now very approximate to the along the Salinas River approximately fifth intersection with an unnamed alignment of 1st Street and then Niblick 2.3 miles to the river’s intersection with intermittent stream, Paso de Robles Road) approximately 0.5 mile, returning the boundary line of the Paso de Robles Land Grant; then to the beginning point. Land Grant; then (23) Proceed westerly (upstream) Signed: September 4, 2014. (12) Proceed southwesterly along the along the unnamed intermittent stream John J. Manfreda, boundary line of the Paso de Robles and then the stream’s middle branch Administrator. Land Grant approximately 2.3 miles to approximately 1.1 miles to the marked Approved: September 9, 2014. the point where the boundary line turns end of the stream, and then continue Timothy E. Skud, sharply to the northwest; then due west in a straight line Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and (13) Proceed northwesterly approximately 0.05 mile to State Route Tariff Policy). approximately 4.65 miles along the 46 (Cayucos Road), Paso de Robles Land [FR Doc. 2014–24169 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] boundary line of the Paso de Robles Grant; then Land Grant, crossing onto the York (24) Proceed northeasterly on State BILLING CODE 4810–31–P Mountain map, to the point where the Route 46 (Cayucos Road) approximately boundary line turns due north 0.8 mile to BM 924, Paso de Robles DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (coincides with the southeast corner of Land Grant; then section 32, T27S/R11E); then (25) Proceed due north in a straight Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (14) Proceed north and then north- line to the southeast corner of section Bureau northeasterly along the boundary line of 12, T27S/R11E, and continue north the Paso de Robles Land Grant along the eastern boundary line of 27 CFR Part 9 approximately 1.5 miles to the point section 12, a total of approximately 1.1 where the boundary line turns sharply miles, to the section boundary line’s [Docket No. TTB–2013–0004; T.D. TTB–124; Ref: Notice No. 135] to the northwest (coincides with the intersection with a light-duty road eastern-most point of section 20, T27S/ locally known as Live Oak Road; then RIN 1513–AB96 R11E); then (26) Proceed easterly on Live Oak (15) Proceed northwesterly along the Road approximately 0.2 mile to the Establishment of the Eagle Peak boundary line of the Paso de Robles road’s intersection with an unnamed Mendocino County Viticultural Area Land Grant approximately 0.3 mile to intermittent stream, Paso de Robles and Realignments of the Mendocino the eastern-most fork of an unnamed Land Grant; then and Redwood Valley Viticultural Areas three-fork tributary of the Jack Creek; (27) Proceed northwesterly (upstream) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and then along the unnamed intermittent stream Trade Bureau, Treasury. (16) Proceed northerly (downstream) approximately 0.35 mile to the eastern ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. along the unnamed intermittent boundary line of section 12, T27S/R11E; tributary of Jack Creek approximately then SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 0.15 mile to the tributary’s confluence (28) Proceed north along the eastern and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the with Jack Creek, Paso de Robles Land boundary line of section 12, T27S/R11E, approximately 26,260-acre ‘‘Eagle Peak Grant; then to the section’s northeast corner, and Mendocino County’’ viticultural area in (17) Proceed southeasterly then proceed east along the southern Mendocino County, California. The (downstream) along Jack Creek boundary line of section 6, T27S/R11E, viticultural area lies entirely within the approximately 1.8 miles to the creek’s a total of approximately 1.3 miles, to the multi-county North Coast viticultural intersection with an unnamed light-duty intersection of the section 6 boundary area. TTB also modifies the boundaries road locally known as Jack Creek Road line with an unnamed light-duty road of the Mendocino viticultural area and (near BM 920), Paso de Robles Land locally known as Arbor Road; then the Redwood Valley viticultural area to Grant; then (29) Proceed south-southeasterly on eliminate overlaps with the Eagle Peak (18) Proceed northeasterly and then Arbor Road approximately 0.35 mile to Mendocino County viticultural area. east-southeasterly along Jack Creek Road the road’s first intersection with an TTB designates viticultural areas to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Oct 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60969

allow vintners to better describe the establishment of AVAs allows vintners County AVA include its marine- origin of their wines and to allow to describe more accurately the origin of influenced climate, strong breezes, consumers to better identify wines they their wines to consumers and helps mountainous topography, and shallow may purchase. consumers to identify wines they may soils with low water-holding DATES: This final rule is effective purchase. Establishment of an AVA is capabilities. November 10, 2014. neither an approval nor an endorsement As originally proposed, a small FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: by TTB of the wine produced in that portion of the Eagle Peak Mendocino Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and area. County AVA would overlap portions of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Requirements Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street AVAs. To eliminate the potential NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB overlaps, the petitioner later proposed phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175. regulations outlines the procedure for modifying the boundaries of the proposing an AVA and provides that Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: any interested party may petition TTB The proposed boundary modifications Background on Viticultural Areas to establish a grape-growing region as an would eliminate the potential overlaps and would remove the overlapped areas TTB Authority AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes from the Redwood Valley and Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol standards for petitions for the Mendocino AVAs. The proposed Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 establishment of AVAs. Petitions to modifications would reduce the size of U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary establish an AVA must include the the 32,047-acre Redwood Valley AVA of the Treasury to prescribe regulations following: by approximately 1,430 acres and for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, • Evidence that the area within the reduce the size of the 327,437-acre and malt beverages. The FAA Act proposed AVA boundary is nationally Mendocino AVA by approximately provides that these regulations should, or locally known by the AVA name 1,900 acres. The overlapping areas among other things, prohibit consumer specified in the petition; would then become part of the Eagle deception and the use of misleading • An explanation of the basis for Peak Mendocino County AVA. statements on labels, and ensure that defining the boundary of the proposed Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and labels provide the consumer with AVA; adequate information as to the identity • A narrative description of the Comments Received and quality of the product. The Alcohol features of the proposed AVA that affect TTB published Notice No. 135 in the and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau viticulture, such as climate, geology, Federal Register on June 27, 2013 (78 (TTB) administers the FAA Act soils, physical features, and elevation, FR 38613), proposing to establish the pursuant to section 1111(d) of the that make the proposed AVA distinctive Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA and Homeland Security Act of 2002, and distinguish it from adjacent areas modify the boundaries of the Redwood codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The outside the proposed AVA boundary; Valley and Mendocino AVAs. In the Secretary has delegated various • A copy of the appropriate United notice, TTB summarized the evidence authorities through Treasury States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) from the petition regarding the name, Department Order 120–01 (Revised), showing the location of the proposed boundary, and distinguishing features dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB AVA, with the boundary of the for the proposed viticultural area. The Administrator to perform the functions proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; distinguishing features of the proposed and duties in the administration and and viticultural area include climate, enforcement of this law. • A detailed narrative description of geology, topography, and soils. The Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR the proposed AVA boundary based on notice also compared the distinguishing part 4) allows the establishment of USGS map markings. features of the proposed viticultural area definitive viticultural areas and the use to the surrounding areas. For a Eagle Peak Mendocino County Petition of their names as appellations of origin description of the evidence relating to on wine labels and in wine TTB received three petitions on behalf the name, boundary, and distinguishing advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB of local grape growers from Ralph Jens features of the proposed viticultural regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth Carter, one proposing the establishment area, and for a comparison of the standards for the preparation and of the ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County’’ distinguishing features of the proposed submission of petitions for the AVA and two separate companion viticultural area to the surrounding establishment or modification of petitions proposing the modification of areas, see Notice No. 135. American viticultural areas (AVAs) and the boundaries of the existing In Notice No. 135, TTB solicited lists the approved AVAs. ‘‘Mendocino’’ AVA (27 CFR 9.93) and comments on the accuracy of the name, ‘‘Redwood Valley’’ AVA (27 CFR 9.153). boundary, climatic, and other required Definition The proposed AVA and the two existing information submitted in support of the Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB AVAs lie entirely within Mendocino petition. In addition, given the proposed regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines County and the multi-county North AVA’s location within the existing a viticultural area for American wine as Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed North Coast AVA, TTB solicited a delimited grape-growing region having Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA comments on whether the evidence distinguishing features as described in contains approximately 26,260 acres, of submitted in the petition regarding the part 9 of the regulations and a name and which approximately 120 acres are distinguishing features of the proposed a delineated boundary as established in dedicated to 16 commercially producing AVA sufficiently differentiates the part 9 of the regulations. These vineyards. The proposed AVA lies to proposed viticultural area from the designations allow vintners and the west of both the Redwood Valley North Coast AVA. TTB also asked for consumers to attribute a given quality, AVA and the eastern portion of the V- comments on whether the geographical reputation, or other characteristic of a shaped Mendocino AVA. According to features of the proposed viticultural area wine made from grapes grown in an area the petition, the distinguishing features are so distinguishable from the to its geographic origin. The of the proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino surrounding North Coast AVA that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Oct 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 60970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County additional 60 days, until October 28, SA and is no longer associated with the AVA should no longer be part of the 2013. Fetzer family, including Jacob and Ben existing viticultural area. Finally, TTB Fetzer, who own Masut Vineyards, and Comments Received During the Re- asked for comments on the proposed John Fetzer, who owns Saracina opened Comment Period modification of the Redwood Valley and Vineyards. Both Masut Vineyards and Mendocino AVAs and whether the During the re-opened comment Saracina Vineyards are within the evidence presented in the proposed period, TTB received six additional proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA comments regarding the proposed AVA, and Jacob, John, and Ben Fetzer petition sufficiently differentiated the establishment of the Eagle Peak are signatories to the petition to overlapped regions from the established Mendocino County AVA and the establish that AVA. AVAs to warrant removing the realignment of the Redwood Valley and Comment 12 stated that Fetzer overlapped regions from the two AVAs Mendocino AVAs. Two of the six Vineyards does not object to the and including the overlapping regions comments specifically supported the establishment of the proposed AVA but entirely within the Eagle Peak proposed AVA (comments 9 and 10). does object to the proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA. The comment One of the two comments was from a Mendocino County name. According to period on Notice No. 135 closed on wine marketing and sales consultant, the comment, the petitioners failed to August 26, 2013. and the second comment was from the provide sufficient evidence to In response to Notice No. 135, TTB United States Representative from the demonstrate both that the region of the received a total of seven comments, six district that includes the proposed Eagle proposed AVA is known as ‘‘Eagle Peak of which supported the establishment of Peak Mendocino County viticultural Mendocino County’’ and that the the Eagle Peak Mendocino County area. Comment 10 also specifically proposed name is associated with an supported the proposed realignment of viticultural area and the realignment of area known for viticulture. Instead, the the Redwood Valley AVA boundary, the Redwood Valley and Mendocino comment stated that the region is stating that the proposed realignment AVA boundaries. Commenters included known as either ‘‘Forsythe Creek’’ or area consists of mountainous and local residents, vineyard owners, and ‘‘Walker Valley.’’ As evidence, the hillside terrain that is more consistent winemakers, as well as a local winery comment referenced USDA soil surveys with the terrain of the proposed Eagle organization. None of the comments from 1910 that were included in the Peak Mendocino County AVA than the received during the comment period original petition. In those soil surveys, flatter, lower terrain found within the addressed the question of whether the the region of the proposed AVA is majority of the Redwood Valley AVA. described as a ‘‘cohesive unit, referred Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA is Two of the comments received during so distinguishable from the North Coast to as Forsythe Creek Valley and the re-opened comment period did not Forsythe Creek Gap.’’ The comment also AVA that it should no longer be part of address the substance of the proposed noted that there is a large valley within the North Coast AVA. TTB received no rulemaking. One of those two the proposed AVA that is labeled on comments in opposition of either the commenters stated that he neither USGS maps as ‘‘Walker Valley.’’ Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA, as supported nor opposed establishment of Finally, comment 12 stated that if proposed, or the proposed boundary the proposed AVA or the proposed TTB established the proposed AVA with modifications. boundary modifications, but rather the name ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino Only one of the seven comments requested that TTB remove the periods County,’’ the public would confuse the specifically addressed the proposed from the township and range AVA name with the Fetzer Vineyards’ modification of the Redwood Valley and designations in the proposed regulatory ‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand name. Mendocino AVAs’ boundaries text of § 9.93 so as to conform to the Furthermore, comment 12 claimed that (comment 3). The commenter, who style of the current regulatory text for Fetzer Vineyards would become legally owns a vineyard that is within the that section (comment 8). TTB notes barred from continuing the use of its proposed AVA but not within the that the periods in the proposed brand name, since it would be unable to proposed realignment area, supported regulatory text are consistent with the source enough grapes from within the the proposed boundary modifications style of the current regulatory text of proposed AVA or Mendocino County. because ‘‘[t]he Eagle Peak area is all § 9.93, and the proposed amendment to In response to comment 12, Jacob upland, mountainous terrain with the section will be adopted as final Fetzer, owner of Masut Vineyards, shallow soils, while Redwood Valley is without change. The other comment submitted a comment (comment 13) on mostly level with deep soils’’ and the (comment 11), which was addressed to behalf of the petitioners for the Mendocino AVA ‘‘contains many the Department of Justice, called for proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County different characteristics and is not stronger alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and AVA. Comment 13 challenged the claim limited to the upland area.’’ TTB notes explosives transfer regulations, topics that the petition failed to provide that there are two vineyards located which are outside the scope of the adequate evidence that the proposed within the proposed realignment area, proposed rule. Accordingly, that topic AVA is known as ‘‘Eagle Peak and the petition included letters from will not be addressed in this Mendocino County.’’ The comment also both vineyard owners in support of the rulemaking. disagreed with the claim that the proposed boundary modifications. proposed name would cause consumer The seventh comment (comment 7) Comments Regarding Proposed AVA confusion and force Fetzer Vineyards to requested an extension of the comment Name abandon its ‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand period so that the commenter could The final two comments received name. further review the proposed rule. The during the re-opened comment period After consideration of the petition and extension request was received too late addressed the proposed AVA name. One the two comments regarding the for TTB to extend the original comment comment was in the form of a letter proposed name, TTB has determined period. Therefore, TTB published from an attorney on behalf of his client, that the petition to establish the Eagle Notice No. 135A in the Federal Register Fetzer Vineyards of Hopland, California Peak Mendocino County AVA contained on August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53103), re- (comment 12). Fetzer Vineyards is sufficient evidence showing that the opening the comment period for an currently owned by Vin˜ a Concha y Toro region of the proposed AVA is currently

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Oct 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60971

known by that name. TTB finds that the approximately 26,260-acre Eagle the wine’s true place of origin. With the comment 12 did not provide evidence Peak Mendocino County AVA and the establishment of this AVA, its name, that the region of the proposed AVA is modification of the boundaries of the ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County,’’ will not known as Eagle Peak Mendocino Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs. be recognized as a name of viticultural County, nor did it provide any evidence Accordingly, under the authority of the significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). that the region is currently known as FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the The text of the regulation clarifies this either ‘‘Forsythe Creek’’ or ‘‘Walker Homeland Security Act of 2002, and point. Once this final rule becomes Valley.’’ Although old USDA soil part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB effective, wine bottlers using the name surveys do refer to the area as ‘‘Forsythe establishes the ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County’’ in a Creek Valley’’ or ‘‘Forsythe Creek Gap,’’ County’’ AVA in Mendocino County, brand name, including a trademark, or TTB regulations require the name California. in another label reference as to the evidence to show that the region of the TTB has also determined that the land origin of the wine, will have to ensure proposed AVA is currently known by within the AVA will remain part of the that the product is eligible to use the the proposed name. larger North Coast AVA. The Eagle Peak viticultural name as an appellation of With respect to the statement in Mendocino County AVA experiences origin. comment 12 that the petition must the marine fog and breezes that are the The establishment of the Eagle Peak provide evidence that the proposed primary features of the North Coast Mendocino County AVA will not affect AVA name has historical significance AVA. However, due to its much smaller any existing viticultural area, and any with regard to viticulture, TTB notes size, the soil, terrain, and climate of the bottlers using ‘‘North Coast’’ as an that its regulations (27 CFR 9.12(a)(1)) Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA are appellation of origin or in a brand name only require the petition to demonstrate more uniform than those of the large, for wines made from grapes grown that the proposed AVA name is multi-county North Coast AVA. The within the North Coast viticultural areas ‘‘currently and directly associated with uniqueness of the soil, terrain, and will not be affected by the establishment an area in which viticulture exists.’’ The climate of the Eagle Peak Mendocino of this new viticultural area. The regulations do not require that the County AVA also distinguish the AVA establishment of the Eagle Peak proposed name itself be associated with from the surrounding region. Therefore, Mendocino County AVA will allow viticulture, only that viticulture must be TTB is recognizing the Eagle Peak vintners to use ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino taking place within the region known by Mendocino County area as a distinct County’’ and ‘‘North Coast’’ as the proposed AVA name. The petition AVA within the larger North Coast appellations of origin for wines made to establish the Eagle Peak Mendocino AVA. from grapes grown within the Eagle County AVA provided the names of the Furthermore, TTB modifies the Peak Mendocino County AVA if the commercial vineyards within the boundaries of the Redwood Valley and wines meet the eligibility requirements proposed AVA as evidence of current Mendocino AVAs as described in Notice for the appellation. viticultural activity within the region No. 135. TTB has determined that the For a wine to be labeled with an AVA known by the proposed name. mountainous terrain, shallow soils, cool name or with a brand name that Finally, with respect to the claim that growing season temperatures, and gusty includes an AVA name, at least 85 Fetzer Vineyards would be forced to winds of the realignment area described percent of the wine must be derived abandon its ‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand in Notice No. 135 are more consistent from grapes grown within the area name if the proposed AVA is with the features of the Eagle Peak represented by that name, and the wine established with the name Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA than with the must meet the other conditions listed in Mendocino County, TTB notes that low level valleys, deep alluvial soils, 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not Notice No. 135 explicitly proposed that and warm temperatures of the Redwood eligible for labeling with an AVA name only the full name of the proposed AVA Valley and Mendocino AVAs. and that name appears in the brand be designated as a term of viticultural Therefore, TTB is removing the name, then the label is not in significance. Furthermore, Notice No. realignment area from the Redwood compliance and the bottler must change 135 specifically stated, and this Valley and Mendocino AVAs and the brand name and obtain approval of rulemaking re-confirms, that any wine placing it entirely within the Eagle Peak a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name bottlers using ‘‘Eagle Peak,’’ standing Mendocino County AVA. These changes appears in another reference on the alone, as a brand name on a wine label are effective 30 days from the date of label in a misleading manner, the bottler would be able to continue to use the publication of this document. would have to obtain approval of a new brand name. The establishment of the label. proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County Boundary Description Different rules apply if a wine has a AVA would not affect Fetzer Vineyards’ See the narrative boundary brand name containing an AVA name ability to bottle wine under the ‘‘Eagle description of the Eagle Peak that was used as a brand name on a Peak Merlot’’ brand name, regardless of Mendocino County AVA and the label approved before July 7, 1986. See where the grapes used to make the wine modified boundaries of the Redwood 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. were grown. TTB also believes that the Valley and Mendocino AVAs in the Transition Period proposed AVA name ‘‘Eagle Peak regulatory text published at the end of Mendocino County’’ is sufficiently this final rule. Once this final rule to establish the distinct from the brand name ‘‘Eagle Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA and Peak Merlot’’ and is unlikely to cause Maps to modify the boundaries of the consumer confusion. The petitioner provided the required Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs maps, and they are listed below in the becomes effective, a transition rule will TTB Determination regulatory text. apply to labels for wines produced from After careful review of the petition grapes grown in the areas that were and all 13 of the comments received in Impact on Current Wine Labels formerly within the Redwood Valley response to Notice No. 135, TTB finds Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits and Mendocino AVAs. A label that the evidence provided by the any label reference on a wine that containing the words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’ petitioner supports the establishment of indicates or implies an origin other than or ‘‘Mendocino’’ (other than in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Oct 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 60972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

phrase ‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle The Regulatory Amendment southwest corner of Section 14, T.16N./ Peak Mendocino County’’) in the brand R.13W.; For the reasons discussed in the name or as an appellation of origin may preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter * * * * * be used on such wine bottled for up to I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as (d) Transition period. A label two years from the effective date of this follows: containing the word ‘‘Mendocino’’ in final rule, provided that such label was the brand name (other than in the approved prior to the effective date of PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL phrase ‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle this final rule and that the wine AREAS Peak Mendocino County’’) or as an conforms to the standards for use of the appellation of origin approved prior to label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) ■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 November 10, 2014 may be used on in effect prior to the final rule. At the continues to read as follows: wine bottled before November 10, 2016 end of this two-year transition period, if Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. if the wine conforms to the standards for a wine is no longer eligible for labeling use of the label set forth in § 4.25 or with the Redwood Valley or Mendocino Subpart C—Approved American § 4.39(i) of this chapter in effect prior to AVA names (e.g., less than 85 percent Viticultural Areas November 10, 2014. of the wine is derived from grapes ■ 3. Amend § 9.153 by revising grown in the Redwood Valley or ■ 2. Amend § 9.93 by revising paragraph paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) and adding Mendocino AVAs, as modified in this (c)(7), redesignating paragraphs (c)(8) paragraphs (c)(10) through (12) and (d) final rule), then a label containing the through (19) as paragraphs (c)(16) to read as follows: words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’ or through (27), and adding new ‘‘Mendocino’’ (other than in the phrase paragraphs (c)(8) through (15), and § 9.153 Redwood Valley. ‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle Peak adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: * * * * * Mendocino County’’) in the brand name (c) * * * or as an appellation of origin would not § 9.93 Mendocino. (1) The beginning point is in the be permitted on the bottle. TTB believes * * * * * northeastern portion of the Ukiah map that the two-year period should provide (c) * * * at the point where State Highway 20 affected label holders with adequate (7) Thence due west along the T.18N./ crosses the R11W/R12W range line time to use up any existing labels. This T.17N. common line until the common along the south bank of the East Fork of transition period is described in the line intersects with the R.13W./R.12W. the Russian River, T16N/R12W. From regulatory text for the Redwood Valley common line; the beginning point, proceed north and Mendocino AVAs published at the (8) Thence in a straight line in a along the R11W/R12W range line, end of this final rule. TTB notes that south-southwesterly direction, crossing crossing onto the Redwood Valley map, wine eligible for labeling with the onto the Willits map, to the intersection to the northeast corner of section 1, Redwood Valley or Mendocino of the 1,600-foot contour line and Baker T16N/R12W; then viticultural areas names under the new Creek (within McGee Canyon) along the (2) Proceed west along the northern boundaries of the Redwood Valley and west boundary line of Section 25, boundary of section 1 to the section’s Mendocino AVAs will not be affected T.17N./R.13W.; northwest corner, T16N/R12W; then by this two-year transition period. (9) Thence in a southeasterly (3) Proceed north along the eastern Regulatory Flexibility Act direction (downstream) along Bakers boundary lines of sections 35, 26, 23, Creek to where the creek intersects with 14, 11, and 2 to the T17N/T18N TTB certifies that this regulation will the 1,400-foot contour line in Section common boundary line at the northeast not have a significant economic impact 25, T.17N/R.13W.; corner of section 2, T17N/R12W; then on a substantial number of small (10) Thence in a straight line in a (4) Proceed west along the T17N/ entities. The regulation imposes no new southeasterly direction to the southeast T18N common line to the northwest reporting, recordkeeping, or other corner of Section 36, T.17N./R.13W.; corner of section 6, T17N/R12W; then administrative requirement. Any benefit (5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a (11) Thence in a straight line in a derived from the use of a viticultural straight line, crossing onto the Laughlin west-southwesterly direction to the area name would be the result of a Range map, to the intersection of the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and an proprietor’s efforts and consumer 1,400-foot contour line and Bakers unnamed road known locally as Reeves acceptance of wines from that area. Creek within McGee Canyon, section 25, Canyon Road in Section 1, T.16N./ Therefore, no regulatory flexibility T17N/R13W; then R.13W.; analysis is required. (6) Proceed southeasterly in a straight (12) Thence in a straight line in a line approximately 1.5 miles, crossing Executive Order 12866 southeasterly direction to the southeast onto the Redwood Valley map, to the corner of Section 1, T.16N./R.13W.; It has been determined that this rule southeast corner of section 36, T17N/ (13) Thence in a straight line in a R13W; then is not a significant regulatory action as south-southwesterly direction to the defined by Executive Order 12866 of (7) Proceed west-southwesterly in a intersection of an unnamed, straight line approximately 0.55 mile, September 30, 1993. Therefore, no unimproved road and an unnamed, regulatory assessment is required. crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, intermittent stream, approximately 500 to the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 Drafting Information feet south of Seward Creek, in Section and an unnamed road known locally as 12, T.16N./R.13W.; Reeves Canyon Road, section 1, T16N/ Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations (14) Thence in a straight line in a R13W; then and Rulings Division drafted this final west-southwesterly direction to the (8) Proceed southeasterly in a straight rule. southwest corner of Section 12, T.16N./ line approximately 0.9 mile, crossing List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 R.13W.; onto the Redwood Valley map, to the (15) Thence in a straight line in a southeast corner of section 1, T16N/ Wine. southwesterly direction to the R13W; then

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Oct 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60973

(9) Proceed south-southwesterly in a beginning point, proceed southeasterly common boundary line and an straight line approximately 0.65 mile to (downstream) approximately 0.2 mile unnamed, unimproved road east of the intersection of an unnamed, along Bakers Creek to the creek’s Leonard Lake, section 1, T16N/R14W; unimproved road and an unnamed, intersection with the 1,400-foot contour then intermittent stream, approximately 500 line, section 25, T17N/R13W; then (14) Proceed west-northwesterly along feet south of Seward Creek, section 12, (2) Proceed southeasterly in a straight the unnamed, unimproved road to the T16N/R13W; then line approximately 1.5 miles, crossing road’s intersection with the 2,000 foot (10) Proceed west-southwesterly in a onto the Redwood Valley map, to the contour line between Leonard Lake and straight line approximately 0.9 mile, southeast corner of section 36, T17N/ Mud Lake, section 1, T16N/R13W; then crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, R13W; then (15) Proceed north-northwesterly in a to the southwest corner of section 12, (3) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line approximately 1.6 miles, T16N/R13W; then straight line approximately 0.55 mile, crossing onto the Greenough Ridge map, (11) Proceed east-southeasterly in a crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, to the 2,246-foot elevation point, section straight line, crossing onto the far to the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 26, T17N/R14W; then northeastern corner of the Orrs Springs and an unnamed road locally known as (16) Proceed northerly in a straight map, then continuing onto the Ukiah Reeves Canyon Road, section 1, T16N/ line approximately 0.9 mile to the map, to the intersection of State R13W; then 2,214-foot elevation point, section 23, Highway 20 and a road known locally (4) Proceed southeasterly in a straight T17N/R14W; then as North State Street (old U.S. Highway line approximately 0.9 mile, crossing (17) Proceed northeasterly in a 101), north of Calpella, T16N/R12W; onto the Redwood Valley map, to the straight line approximately 1 mile, then southeast corner of section 1, T16N/ crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, (12) Proceed easterly along State R13W; then to the peak of Impassable Rocks, section Highway 20, returning to the beginning (5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a 24, T17N/R14W; then point. straight line approximately 0.65 mile to (18) Proceed northwesterly in a (d) Transition period. A label the intersection of an unnamed, straight line approximately 0.95 mile, containing the words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’ unimproved road and an unnamed crossing onto the Greenough Ridge map, in the brand name or as an appellation intermittent stream located to the 2,617-foot elevation point, section of origin approved prior to November approximately 500 feet south of Seward 14, T17N/R14W, and continue 10, 2014 may be used on wine bottled Creek, section 12, T16N/R13W; then northwesterly in a straight line before November 10, 2016 if the wine (6) Proceed west-southwesterly in a approximately 0.8 mile to the 2,836-foot conforms to the standards for use of the straight line approximately 0.9 mile, elevation point of Irene Peak, section 11, label set forth in § 4.25 or § 4.39(i) of crossing onto the Laughlin Ridge map, T17N/R14W; then this chapter in effect prior to November to the southwest corner of section 12, (19) Proceed northerly in a straight 10, 2014. T16N/R13W; then line approximately 1 mile to the ■ 4. Add § 9.237 to read as follows: (7) Proceed west-southwesterly in a intersection of 3 unnamed unimproved straight line approximately 0.8 mile, roads approximately 0.3 mile west of § 9.237 Eagle Peak Mendocino County. crossing onto the Orrs Springs map, to the headwaters of Walker Creek (locally (a) Name. The name of the viticultural the 1,883-foot elevation point in section known as the intersection of Blackhawk area described in this section is ‘‘Eagle 14, T16N/R13W; then Drive, Walker Lake Road, and Williams Peak Mendocino County’’. For purposes (8) Proceed west-southwesterly in a Ranch Road) section 2, T17N/R14W; of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Eagle Peak series of three straight lines (totaling then Mendocino County’’ is a term of approximately 3.15 miles in distance), (20) Proceed easterly along the viticultural significance. first to the 1,836-foot elevation point in unnamed improved road, locally known (b) Approved maps. The four United section 15, T16N/R13W; then to the as Blackhawk Drive, approximately 1.35 States Geographical Survey (USGS) 1,805-foot elevation point in section 16, miles, crossing onto the Laughlin range 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to T16N/R13W; and then to the 2,251-foot map, to the road’s intersection with the determine the boundary of the Eagle elevation point in section 20, T16W/ section 2 eastern boundary line, T17N/ Peak Mendocino County viticultural R13W; then R14W; then area are titled: (9) Proceed south-southwesterly in a (21) Proceed east-northeasterly in a (1) Laughlin Range, California, straight line approximately 0.8 mile to straight line approximately 0.75 mile, provisional edition 1991; the 2,562-foot elevation point, section returning to the 2,213 elevation point (2) Redwood Valley, Calif., 1960, 20, T16N/R13W; then near the northeast corner of section 1, photo revised 1975; (10) Proceed north-northwesterly in a T17N/R14W; then (3) Orrs Springs, California, straight line approximately 0.8 mile to (22) Proceed southeasterly in a provisional edition 1991; and the 2,218-foot elevation point, section straight line approximately 3.55 miles to (4) Greenough Ridge, California, 19, T16N/R13W; then BM 1893 (0.2 mile south of Ridge) in provisional edition 1991. (11) Proceed northeasterly in a section 16, T17N/R13W, and then (c) Boundary. The Eagle Peak straight line approximately 0.35 mile to continue southeasterly in a straight line Mendocino County viticultural area is the 2,112-foot elevation point in the approximately 0.85 mile to a radio located in Mendocino County, southeast corner of section 18, T16N/ facility located at approximately 2,840 California. The boundary of the Eagle R13W; then feet in elevation in the Laughlin Range, Peak Mendocino County viticultural (12) Proceed north-northeasterly in a section 15, T17N/R13W; then area is as follows: straight line approximately 0.9 mile to (23) Proceed easterly in a straight line (1) The beginning point is located on the 2,344-foot elevation point, section approximately 0.85 mile to another the Laughlin Range map within McGee 17, T16N/R13W; then radio facility located at approximately Canyon at the point where the 1,600- (13) Proceed northwesterly in a 3,320 feet in elevation in the Laughlin foot contour line intersects with Bakers straight line approximately 1.8 miles, Range, section 14, T17N/R13W; then Creek near the western boundary of crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, (24) Proceed southerly in a straight section 25, T17N/R13W. From the to the intersection of the R13W/R14W line approximately 1.5 miles to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Oct 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 60974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

2,452-foot elevation point in section 26, continue extensive outreach and employment regulations should go into T17N/R13W; then technical assistance efforts, in particular effect as soon as practicable because (25) Proceed southeasterly in a with States regarding publicly funded they were intended to serve the straight line approximately 0.4 mile to home care programs. important purpose of extending basic the intersection of the 1,800-foot DATES: Enforcement of the final rule labor standards to home care workers, contour line with Bakers Creek within published October 1, 2013, at 78 FR which in turn helps ensure that McGee Canyon, section 26, T17N/ 60454: From January 1, 2015, to June 30, individuals and their families can rely R13W; then 2015, the Department will not bring on a professional, trained workforce to (26) Proceed southeasterly enforcement actions against any provide high-quality services. 78 FR (downstream) approximately 0.2 mile employer as to violations of FLSA 60455, 60495. The Department also along Bakers Creek, returning to the obligations resulting from the amended acknowledged, however, that complex beginning point. regulations; from July 1, 2015, to Federal and State systems fund a Signed: August 25, 2014. December 31, 2015, the Department will significant portion of the home care John J. Manfreda, exercise prosecutorial discretion in services provided across the country, and making adjustments to operations, Administrator. determining whether to bring enforcement actions. programs, and budgets in order to Approved: August 29, 2014. comply with the FLSA could take time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy E. Skud, Id. at 60494–95. Therefore, in response Michael Hancock, Assistant Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and to comments received in the course of Administrator, Office of Policy, U.S. Tariff Policy). the rulemaking process, the Department Department of Labor, Wage and Hour [FR Doc. 2014–24177 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] set an effective date of January 1, 2015, Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., BILLING CODE 4110–31–P an unprecedented 15 months after the Room S–3502, FP Building, publication of the Final Rule. Id.1 Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) Since promulgating the Final Rule, 343–5940 (this is not a toll-free DEPARTMENT OF LABOR the Department has conducted extensive number), email: [email protected]. technical assistance for the regulated Wage and Hour Division Copies of this document may be community. Specifically, the obtained in alternative formats (Large Department has directly reached 29 CFR Part 552 Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), thousands of people through over 100 upon request, by calling (202) 693–0675 RIN 1235–AA05 webinars, conference calls, meetings, (not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD and presentations, engaging callers may dial toll-free (877) 889–5627 Application of the Fair Labor representatives from State governments, to obtain information or request associations of State Medicaid and other Standards Act to Domestic Service; materials in alternative formats. Announcement of Time-Limited Non- relevant agencies, consumers, disability SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Enforcement Policy and senior citizens’ advocates, veterans’ I. Non-Enforcement Policy organizations, worker representatives, AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, and industry groups, among others. Department of Labor. On October 1, 2013, the Wage and Furthermore, to help stakeholders learn ACTION: Policy statement. Hour Division of the Department of more about the changes associated with Labor (Department) issued Application the Final Rule, the Department created SUMMARY: The Department of Labor’s of the Fair Labor Standards Act to a home care Web page, which contains (Department) October 1, 2013, Final Domestic Service; Final Rule, 78 FR links to fact sheets, FAQs, webinar Rule amending regulations regarding 60454 (Home Care Final Rule or Final recordings, interactive web tools, and domestic service employment, which Rule). The Final Rule amended the other materials, including two extends Fair Labor Standards Act domestic service employment Administrator’s Interpretations issued (FLSA) protections to most home care regulations under the Fair Labor this year in response to stakeholder workers will become effective on Standards Act (FLSA or Act), 29 U.S.C. questions regarding the application of January 1, 2015. The Department is not 201 et seq., which are contained in 29 the FLSA to shared living arrangements changing this effective date. This CFR Part 552. Among other changes, the and joint employment of home care document announces a time-limited Final Rule (1) modified the definition of workers by public entities in consumer- non-enforcement policy. For six ‘‘companionship services’’ and (2) directed programs. See www.dol.gov/ months, from January 1, 2015 to June prohibited third party employers (i.e., whd/homecare. Moreover, the 30, 2015, the Department will not bring employers of domestic service Department has engaged in targeted enforcement actions against any employees other than the individuals outreach to the governments of all 50 employer as to violations of FLSA receiving services or the individuals’ States. Through this outreach, the obligations resulting from the amended families or households) from claiming Department has provided extensive regulations. For the following six either the companionship services technical assistance to States as they months, from July 1, 2015 to December exemption from the FLSA’s minimum implement the Home Care Final Rule in 31, 2015, the Department will exercise wage and overtime compensation publicly funded programs in an effort to prosecutorial discretion in determining requirements or the live-in domestic encourage implementation of the Final whether to bring enforcement actions, service employee exemption from the Rule in a manner that expands wage with particular consideration given to FLSA’s overtime compensation protections for most home care workers the extent to which States and other requirement. See 78 FR 60463–73, entities have made good faith efforts to 60480–83, 60557 (relevant regulatory 1 Typically, employers subject to FLSA regulatory bring their home care programs into changes to be codified at 29 CFR 552.6, changes have 30 or 60 days to adjust before a compliance with the FLSA since 552.109). rulemaking becomes effective. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 801(a)(3)(A). Prior to the Home Care Final Rule, the promulgation of the Final Rule. The Department explained in the longest effective date delay for a Wage and Hour Throughout the 12-month duration of preamble to the Final Rule that the Division rule was 120 days. See 78 FR 60495 (citing this policy, the Department will changes to the domestic service 69 FR 22126 (Apr. 23, 2004)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:15 Oct 08, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES