Establishment of the Eagle Peak Mendocino County Viticultural Area and Realignments of the Mendocino and Redwood Valley Viticultural Areas, 60968-60974 [2014-24177]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60968
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the 1,452-foot elevation point, and
continue south-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.3 mile to
the intersection of two light-duty roads
locally known as S. El Pomar Road and
Homestead Road, Asuncion Land Grant;
then
(9) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 1.1 miles to
the point where an unnamed light-duty
road locally known as Templeton Road
intersects with an unnamed intermittent
stream (where Templeton Road makes a
90 degree turn at its junction with two
unnamed unimproved roads), Asuncion
Land Grant; then
(10) Proceed westerly (downstream)
along the unnamed intermittent stream
approximately 0.5 mile to the stream’s
confluence with the Salinas River,
Asuncion Land Grant; then
(11) Proceed westerly (downstream)
along the Salinas River approximately
2.3 miles to the river’s intersection with
the boundary line of the Paso de Robles
Land Grant; then
(12) Proceed southwesterly along the
boundary line of the Paso de Robles
Land Grant approximately 2.3 miles to
the point where the boundary line turns
sharply to the northwest; then
(13) Proceed northwesterly
approximately 4.65 miles along the
boundary line of the Paso de Robles
Land Grant, crossing onto the York
Mountain map, to the point where the
boundary line turns due north
(coincides with the southeast corner of
section 32, T27S/R11E); then
(14) Proceed north and then northnortheasterly along the boundary line of
the Paso de Robles Land Grant
approximately 1.5 miles to the point
where the boundary line turns sharply
to the northwest (coincides with the
eastern-most point of section 20, T27S/
R11E); then
(15) Proceed northwesterly along the
boundary line of the Paso de Robles
Land Grant approximately 0.3 mile to
the eastern-most fork of an unnamed
three-fork tributary of the Jack Creek;
then
(16) Proceed northerly (downstream)
along the unnamed intermittent
tributary of Jack Creek approximately
0.15 mile to the tributary’s confluence
with Jack Creek, Paso de Robles Land
Grant; then
(17) Proceed southeasterly
(downstream) along Jack Creek
approximately 1.8 miles to the creek’s
intersection with an unnamed light-duty
road locally known as Jack Creek Road
(near BM 920), Paso de Robles Land
Grant; then
(18) Proceed northeasterly and then
east-southeasterly along Jack Creek Road
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Oct 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
approximately 1 mile to the road’s
intersection with State Route 46; then
(19) Proceed east on State Route 46
approximately 0.15 mile to the road’s
intersection with an unnamed light-duty
road locally known as Hidden Valley
Road, Paso de Robles Land Grant; then
(20) Proceed southeasterly and then
easterly on Hidden Valley Road
approximately 2.2 miles, crossing onto
the Templeton map, to the road’s
intersection with an unnamed light-duty
road locally known as Vineyard Drive,
Paso de Robles Land Grant; then
(21) Proceed east on Vineyard Drive
approximately 0.85 mile to the road’s
intersection with an unnamed light-duty
road locally known as S. Bethel Road,
Paso de Robles Land Grant; then
(22) Proceed north-northeasterly on S.
Bethel Road and then N. Bethel Road
approximately 1.7 miles to the road’s
fifth intersection with an unnamed
intermittent stream, Paso de Robles
Land Grant; then
(23) Proceed westerly (upstream)
along the unnamed intermittent stream
and then the stream’s middle branch
approximately 1.1 miles to the marked
end of the stream, and then continue
due west in a straight line
approximately 0.05 mile to State Route
46 (Cayucos Road), Paso de Robles Land
Grant; then
(24) Proceed northeasterly on State
Route 46 (Cayucos Road) approximately
0.8 mile to BM 924, Paso de Robles
Land Grant; then
(25) Proceed due north in a straight
line to the southeast corner of section
12, T27S/R11E, and continue north
along the eastern boundary line of
section 12, a total of approximately 1.1
miles, to the section boundary line’s
intersection with a light-duty road
locally known as Live Oak Road; then
(26) Proceed easterly on Live Oak
Road approximately 0.2 mile to the
road’s intersection with an unnamed
intermittent stream, Paso de Robles
Land Grant; then
(27) Proceed northwesterly (upstream)
along the unnamed intermittent stream
approximately 0.35 mile to the eastern
boundary line of section 12, T27S/R11E;
then
(28) Proceed north along the eastern
boundary line of section 12, T27S/R11E,
to the section’s northeast corner, and
then proceed east along the southern
boundary line of section 6, T27S/R11E,
a total of approximately 1.3 miles, to the
intersection of the section 6 boundary
line with an unnamed light-duty road
locally known as Arbor Road; then
(29) Proceed south-southeasterly on
Arbor Road approximately 0.35 mile to
the road’s first intersection with an
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
unnamed intermittent stream, Paso de
Robles Land Grant; then
(30) Proceed southeasterly and then
easterly (downstream) along the
unnamed intermittent stream
approximately 1.4 miles to the stream’s
intersection with an unnamed light-duty
road known locally as S. Vine Street,
just west of the U.S. 101/State Route 46
interchange, Paso de Robles Land Grant;
then
(31) Proceed northerly along S. Vine
Street (which generally parallels U.S.
101) approximately 1.8 miles to the
street’s intersection with the marked
city of Paso Robles Corporate Boundary
line (concurrent with the locally-known
intersection of S. Vine and 1st Streets),
Paso de Robles Land Grant; then
(32) Proceed east along the marked
city of Paso Robles Corporate Boundary
line (now very approximate to the
alignment of 1st Street and then Niblick
Road) approximately 0.5 mile, returning
to the beginning point.
Signed: September 4, 2014.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: September 9, 2014.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2014–24169 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB–2013–0004; T.D. TTB–124;
Ref: Notice No. 135]
RIN 1513–AB96
Establishment of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County Viticultural Area
and Realignments of the Mendocino
and Redwood Valley Viticultural Areas
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
AGENCY:
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the
approximately 26,260-acre ‘‘Eagle Peak
Mendocino County’’ viticultural area in
Mendocino County, California. The
viticultural area lies entirely within the
multi-county North Coast viticultural
area. TTB also modifies the boundaries
of the Mendocino viticultural area and
the Redwood Valley viticultural area to
eliminate overlaps with the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County viticultural area.
TTB designates viticultural areas to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM
09OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
allow vintners to better describe the
origin of their wines and to allow
consumers to better identify wines they
may purchase.
DATES: This final rule is effective
November 10, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street
NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005;
phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (FAA Act), 27
U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to prescribe regulations
for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits,
and malt beverages. The FAA Act
provides that these regulations should,
among other things, prohibit consumer
deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that
labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity
and quality of the product. The Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The
Secretary has delegated various
authorities through Treasury
Department Order 120–01 (Revised),
dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB
Administrator to perform the functions
and duties in the administration and
enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
part 4) allows the establishment of
definitive viticultural areas and the use
of their names as appellations of origin
on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth
standards for the preparation and
submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of
American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines
a viticultural area for American wine as
a delimited grape-growing region having
distinguishing features as described in
part 9 of the regulations and a name and
a delineated boundary as established in
part 9 of the regulations. These
designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality,
reputation, or other characteristic of a
wine made from grapes grown in an area
to its geographic origin. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Oct 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
establishment of AVAs allows vintners
to describe more accurately the origin of
their wines to consumers and helps
consumers to identify wines they may
purchase. Establishment of an AVA is
neither an approval nor an endorsement
by TTB of the wine produced in that
area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations outlines the procedure for
proposing an AVA and provides that
any interested party may petition TTB
to establish a grape-growing region as an
AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes
standards for petitions for the
establishment of AVAs. Petitions to
establish an AVA must include the
following:
• Evidence that the area within the
proposed AVA boundary is nationally
or locally known by the AVA name
specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for
defining the boundary of the proposed
AVA;
• A narrative description of the
features of the proposed AVA that affect
viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation,
that make the proposed AVA distinctive
and distinguish it from adjacent areas
outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• A copy of the appropriate United
States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s)
showing the location of the proposed
AVA, with the boundary of the
proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon;
and
• A detailed narrative description of
the proposed AVA boundary based on
USGS map markings.
Eagle Peak Mendocino County Petition
TTB received three petitions on behalf
of local grape growers from Ralph Jens
Carter, one proposing the establishment
of the ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County’’
AVA and two separate companion
petitions proposing the modification of
the boundaries of the existing
‘‘Mendocino’’ AVA (27 CFR 9.93) and
‘‘Redwood Valley’’ AVA (27 CFR 9.153).
The proposed AVA and the two existing
AVAs lie entirely within Mendocino
County and the multi-county North
Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed
Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA
contains approximately 26,260 acres, of
which approximately 120 acres are
dedicated to 16 commercially producing
vineyards. The proposed AVA lies to
the west of both the Redwood Valley
AVA and the eastern portion of the Vshaped Mendocino AVA. According to
the petition, the distinguishing features
of the proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60969
County AVA include its marineinfluenced climate, strong breezes,
mountainous topography, and shallow
soils with low water-holding
capabilities.
As originally proposed, a small
portion of the Eagle Peak Mendocino
County AVA would overlap portions of
the Redwood Valley and Mendocino
AVAs. To eliminate the potential
overlaps, the petitioner later proposed
modifying the boundaries of the
Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs.
The proposed boundary modifications
would eliminate the potential overlaps
and would remove the overlapped areas
from the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs. The proposed
modifications would reduce the size of
the 32,047-acre Redwood Valley AVA
by approximately 1,430 acres and
reduce the size of the 327,437-acre
Mendocino AVA by approximately
1,900 acres. The overlapping areas
would then become part of the Eagle
Peak Mendocino County AVA.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 135 in the
Federal Register on June 27, 2013 (78
FR 38613), proposing to establish the
Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA and
modify the boundaries of the Redwood
Valley and Mendocino AVAs. In the
notice, TTB summarized the evidence
from the petition regarding the name,
boundary, and distinguishing features
for the proposed viticultural area. The
distinguishing features of the proposed
viticultural area include climate,
geology, topography, and soils. The
notice also compared the distinguishing
features of the proposed viticultural area
to the surrounding areas. For a
description of the evidence relating to
the name, boundary, and distinguishing
features of the proposed viticultural
area, and for a comparison of the
distinguishing features of the proposed
viticultural area to the surrounding
areas, see Notice No. 135.
In Notice No. 135, TTB solicited
comments on the accuracy of the name,
boundary, climatic, and other required
information submitted in support of the
petition. In addition, given the proposed
AVA’s location within the existing
North Coast AVA, TTB solicited
comments on whether the evidence
submitted in the petition regarding the
distinguishing features of the proposed
AVA sufficiently differentiates the
proposed viticultural area from the
North Coast AVA. TTB also asked for
comments on whether the geographical
features of the proposed viticultural area
are so distinguishable from the
surrounding North Coast AVA that the
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
AVA should no longer be part of the
existing viticultural area. Finally, TTB
asked for comments on the proposed
modification of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs and whether the
evidence presented in the proposed
Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA
petition sufficiently differentiated the
overlapped regions from the established
AVAs to warrant removing the
overlapped regions from the two AVAs
and including the overlapping regions
entirely within the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA. The comment
period on Notice No. 135 closed on
August 26, 2013.
In response to Notice No. 135, TTB
received a total of seven comments, six
of which supported the establishment of
the Eagle Peak Mendocino County
viticultural area and the realignment of
the Redwood Valley and Mendocino
AVA boundaries. Commenters included
local residents, vineyard owners, and
winemakers, as well as a local winery
organization. None of the comments
received during the comment period
addressed the question of whether the
Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA is
so distinguishable from the North Coast
AVA that it should no longer be part of
the North Coast AVA. TTB received no
comments in opposition of either the
Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA, as
proposed, or the proposed boundary
modifications.
Only one of the seven comments
specifically addressed the proposed
modification of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs’ boundaries
(comment 3). The commenter, who
owns a vineyard that is within the
proposed AVA but not within the
proposed realignment area, supported
the proposed boundary modifications
because ‘‘[t]he Eagle Peak area is all
upland, mountainous terrain with
shallow soils, while Redwood Valley is
mostly level with deep soils’’ and the
Mendocino AVA ‘‘contains many
different characteristics and is not
limited to the upland area.’’ TTB notes
that there are two vineyards located
within the proposed realignment area,
and the petition included letters from
both vineyard owners in support of the
proposed boundary modifications.
The seventh comment (comment 7)
requested an extension of the comment
period so that the commenter could
further review the proposed rule. The
extension request was received too late
for TTB to extend the original comment
period. Therefore, TTB published
Notice No. 135A in the Federal Register
on August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53103), reopening the comment period for an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Oct 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
additional 60 days, until October 28,
2013.
Comments Received During the Reopened Comment Period
During the re-opened comment
period, TTB received six additional
comments regarding the proposed
establishment of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA and the
realignment of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs. Two of the six
comments specifically supported the
proposed AVA (comments 9 and 10).
One of the two comments was from a
wine marketing and sales consultant,
and the second comment was from the
United States Representative from the
district that includes the proposed Eagle
Peak Mendocino County viticultural
area. Comment 10 also specifically
supported the proposed realignment of
the Redwood Valley AVA boundary,
stating that the proposed realignment
area consists of mountainous and
hillside terrain that is more consistent
with the terrain of the proposed Eagle
Peak Mendocino County AVA than the
flatter, lower terrain found within the
majority of the Redwood Valley AVA.
Two of the comments received during
the re-opened comment period did not
address the substance of the proposed
rulemaking. One of those two
commenters stated that he neither
supported nor opposed establishment of
the proposed AVA or the proposed
boundary modifications, but rather
requested that TTB remove the periods
from the township and range
designations in the proposed regulatory
text of § 9.93 so as to conform to the
style of the current regulatory text for
that section (comment 8). TTB notes
that the periods in the proposed
regulatory text are consistent with the
style of the current regulatory text of
§ 9.93, and the proposed amendment to
the section will be adopted as final
without change. The other comment
(comment 11), which was addressed to
the Department of Justice, called for
stronger alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and
explosives transfer regulations, topics
which are outside the scope of the
proposed rule. Accordingly, that topic
will not be addressed in this
rulemaking.
Comments Regarding Proposed AVA
Name
The final two comments received
during the re-opened comment period
addressed the proposed AVA name. One
comment was in the form of a letter
from an attorney on behalf of his client,
Fetzer Vineyards of Hopland, California
(comment 12). Fetzer Vineyards is
˜
currently owned by Vina Concha y Toro
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SA and is no longer associated with the
Fetzer family, including Jacob and Ben
Fetzer, who own Masut Vineyards, and
John Fetzer, who owns Saracina
Vineyards. Both Masut Vineyards and
Saracina Vineyards are within the
proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County
AVA, and Jacob, John, and Ben Fetzer
are signatories to the petition to
establish that AVA.
Comment 12 stated that Fetzer
Vineyards does not object to the
establishment of the proposed AVA but
does object to the proposed Eagle Peak
Mendocino County name. According to
the comment, the petitioners failed to
provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate both that the region of the
proposed AVA is known as ‘‘Eagle Peak
Mendocino County’’ and that the
proposed name is associated with an
area known for viticulture. Instead, the
comment stated that the region is
known as either ‘‘Forsythe Creek’’ or
‘‘Walker Valley.’’ As evidence, the
comment referenced USDA soil surveys
from 1910 that were included in the
original petition. In those soil surveys,
the region of the proposed AVA is
described as a ‘‘cohesive unit, referred
to as Forsythe Creek Valley and
Forsythe Creek Gap.’’ The comment also
noted that there is a large valley within
the proposed AVA that is labeled on
USGS maps as ‘‘Walker Valley.’’
Finally, comment 12 stated that if
TTB established the proposed AVA with
the name ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino
County,’’ the public would confuse the
AVA name with the Fetzer Vineyards’
‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand name.
Furthermore, comment 12 claimed that
Fetzer Vineyards would become legally
barred from continuing the use of its
brand name, since it would be unable to
source enough grapes from within the
proposed AVA or Mendocino County.
In response to comment 12, Jacob
Fetzer, owner of Masut Vineyards,
submitted a comment (comment 13) on
behalf of the petitioners for the
proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County
AVA. Comment 13 challenged the claim
that the petition failed to provide
adequate evidence that the proposed
AVA is known as ‘‘Eagle Peak
Mendocino County.’’ The comment also
disagreed with the claim that the
proposed name would cause consumer
confusion and force Fetzer Vineyards to
abandon its ‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand
name.
After consideration of the petition and
the two comments regarding the
proposed name, TTB has determined
that the petition to establish the Eagle
Peak Mendocino County AVA contained
sufficient evidence showing that the
region of the proposed AVA is currently
E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM
09OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
known by that name. TTB finds that
comment 12 did not provide evidence
that the region of the proposed AVA is
not known as Eagle Peak Mendocino
County, nor did it provide any evidence
that the region is currently known as
either ‘‘Forsythe Creek’’ or ‘‘Walker
Valley.’’ Although old USDA soil
surveys do refer to the area as ‘‘Forsythe
Creek Valley’’ or ‘‘Forsythe Creek Gap,’’
TTB regulations require the name
evidence to show that the region of the
proposed AVA is currently known by
the proposed name.
With respect to the statement in
comment 12 that the petition must
provide evidence that the proposed
AVA name has historical significance
with regard to viticulture, TTB notes
that its regulations (27 CFR 9.12(a)(1))
only require the petition to demonstrate
that the proposed AVA name is
‘‘currently and directly associated with
an area in which viticulture exists.’’ The
regulations do not require that the
proposed name itself be associated with
viticulture, only that viticulture must be
taking place within the region known by
the proposed AVA name. The petition
to establish the Eagle Peak Mendocino
County AVA provided the names of the
commercial vineyards within the
proposed AVA as evidence of current
viticultural activity within the region
known by the proposed name.
Finally, with respect to the claim that
Fetzer Vineyards would be forced to
abandon its ‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand
name if the proposed AVA is
established with the name Eagle Peak
Mendocino County, TTB notes that
Notice No. 135 explicitly proposed that
only the full name of the proposed AVA
be designated as a term of viticultural
significance. Furthermore, Notice No.
135 specifically stated, and this
rulemaking re-confirms, that any wine
bottlers using ‘‘Eagle Peak,’’ standing
alone, as a brand name on a wine label
would be able to continue to use the
brand name. The establishment of the
proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County
AVA would not affect Fetzer Vineyards’
ability to bottle wine under the ‘‘Eagle
Peak Merlot’’ brand name, regardless of
where the grapes used to make the wine
were grown. TTB also believes that the
proposed AVA name ‘‘Eagle Peak
Mendocino County’’ is sufficiently
distinct from the brand name ‘‘Eagle
Peak Merlot’’ and is unlikely to cause
consumer confusion.
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition
and all 13 of the comments received in
response to Notice No. 135, TTB finds
that the evidence provided by the
petitioner supports the establishment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Oct 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
the approximately 26,260-acre Eagle
Peak Mendocino County AVA and the
modification of the boundaries of the
Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs.
Accordingly, under the authority of the
FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, and
part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB
establishes the ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino
County’’ AVA in Mendocino County,
California.
TTB has also determined that the land
within the AVA will remain part of the
larger North Coast AVA. The Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA experiences
the marine fog and breezes that are the
primary features of the North Coast
AVA. However, due to its much smaller
size, the soil, terrain, and climate of the
Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA are
more uniform than those of the large,
multi-county North Coast AVA. The
uniqueness of the soil, terrain, and
climate of the Eagle Peak Mendocino
County AVA also distinguish the AVA
from the surrounding region. Therefore,
TTB is recognizing the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County area as a distinct
AVA within the larger North Coast
AVA.
Furthermore, TTB modifies the
boundaries of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs as described in Notice
No. 135. TTB has determined that the
mountainous terrain, shallow soils, cool
growing season temperatures, and gusty
winds of the realignment area described
in Notice No. 135 are more consistent
with the features of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA than with the
low level valleys, deep alluvial soils,
and warm temperatures of the Redwood
Valley and Mendocino AVAs.
Therefore, TTB is removing the
realignment area from the Redwood
Valley and Mendocino AVAs and
placing it entirely within the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA. These changes
are effective 30 days from the date of
publication of this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary
description of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA and the
modified boundaries of the Redwood
Valley and Mendocino AVAs in the
regulatory text published at the end of
this final rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required
maps, and they are listed below in the
regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits
any label reference on a wine that
indicates or implies an origin other than
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60971
the wine’s true place of origin. With the
establishment of this AVA, its name,
‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County,’’ will
be recognized as a name of viticultural
significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3).
The text of the regulation clarifies this
point. Once this final rule becomes
effective, wine bottlers using the name
‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County’’ in a
brand name, including a trademark, or
in another label reference as to the
origin of the wine, will have to ensure
that the product is eligible to use the
viticultural name as an appellation of
origin.
The establishment of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA will not affect
any existing viticultural area, and any
bottlers using ‘‘North Coast’’ as an
appellation of origin or in a brand name
for wines made from grapes grown
within the North Coast viticultural areas
will not be affected by the establishment
of this new viticultural area. The
establishment of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA will allow
vintners to use ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino
County’’ and ‘‘North Coast’’ as
appellations of origin for wines made
from grapes grown within the Eagle
Peak Mendocino County AVA if the
wines meet the eligibility requirements
for the appellation.
For a wine to be labeled with an AVA
name or with a brand name that
includes an AVA name, at least 85
percent of the wine must be derived
from grapes grown within the area
represented by that name, and the wine
must meet the other conditions listed in
27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not
eligible for labeling with an AVA name
and that name appears in the brand
name, then the label is not in
compliance and the bottler must change
the brand name and obtain approval of
a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name
appears in another reference on the
label in a misleading manner, the bottler
would have to obtain approval of a new
label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a
brand name containing an AVA name
that was used as a brand name on a
label approved before July 7, 1986. See
27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Transition Period
Once this final rule to establish the
Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA and
to modify the boundaries of the
Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs
becomes effective, a transition rule will
apply to labels for wines produced from
grapes grown in the areas that were
formerly within the Redwood Valley
and Mendocino AVAs. A label
containing the words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’
or ‘‘Mendocino’’ (other than in the
E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM
09OCR1
60972
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
phrase ‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle
Peak Mendocino County’’) in the brand
name or as an appellation of origin may
be used on such wine bottled for up to
two years from the effective date of this
final rule, provided that such label was
approved prior to the effective date of
this final rule and that the wine
conforms to the standards for use of the
label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i)
in effect prior to the final rule. At the
end of this two-year transition period, if
a wine is no longer eligible for labeling
with the Redwood Valley or Mendocino
AVA names (e.g., less than 85 percent
of the wine is derived from grapes
grown in the Redwood Valley or
Mendocino AVAs, as modified in this
final rule), then a label containing the
words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’ or
‘‘Mendocino’’ (other than in the phrase
‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle Peak
Mendocino County’’) in the brand name
or as an appellation of origin would not
be permitted on the bottle. TTB believes
that the two-year period should provide
affected label holders with adequate
time to use up any existing labels. This
transition period is described in the
regulatory text for the Redwood Valley
and Mendocino AVAs published at the
end of this final rule. TTB notes that
wine eligible for labeling with the
Redwood Valley or Mendocino
viticultural areas names under the new
boundaries of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs will not be affected
by this two-year transition period.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulation imposes no new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of a viticultural
area name would be the result of a
proprietor’s efforts and consumer
acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rule
is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866 of
September 30, 1993. Therefore, no
regulatory assessment is required.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations
and Rulings Division drafted this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Oct 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter
I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Amend § 9.93 by revising paragraph
(c)(7), redesignating paragraphs (c)(8)
through (19) as paragraphs (c)(16)
through (27), and adding new
paragraphs (c)(8) through (15), and
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 9.93
Mendocino.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(7) Thence due west along the T.18N./
T.17N. common line until the common
line intersects with the R.13W./R.12W.
common line;
(8) Thence in a straight line in a
south-southwesterly direction, crossing
onto the Willits map, to the intersection
of the 1,600-foot contour line and Baker
Creek (within McGee Canyon) along the
west boundary line of Section 25,
T.17N./R.13W.;
(9) Thence in a southeasterly
direction (downstream) along Bakers
Creek to where the creek intersects with
the 1,400-foot contour line in Section
25, T.17N/R.13W.;
(10) Thence in a straight line in a
southeasterly direction to the southeast
corner of Section 36, T.17N./R.13W.;
(11) Thence in a straight line in a
west-southwesterly direction to the
intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and an
unnamed road known locally as Reeves
Canyon Road in Section 1, T.16N./
R.13W.;
(12) Thence in a straight line in a
southeasterly direction to the southeast
corner of Section 1, T.16N./R.13W.;
(13) Thence in a straight line in a
south-southwesterly direction to the
intersection of an unnamed,
unimproved road and an unnamed,
intermittent stream, approximately 500
feet south of Seward Creek, in Section
12, T.16N./R.13W.;
(14) Thence in a straight line in a
west-southwesterly direction to the
southwest corner of Section 12, T.16N./
R.13W.;
(15) Thence in a straight line in a
southwesterly direction to the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
southwest corner of Section 14, T.16N./
R.13W.;
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Transition period. A label
containing the word ‘‘Mendocino’’ in
the brand name (other than in the
phrase ‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle
Peak Mendocino County’’) or as an
appellation of origin approved prior to
November 10, 2014 may be used on
wine bottled before November 10, 2016
if the wine conforms to the standards for
use of the label set forth in § 4.25 or
§ 4.39(i) of this chapter in effect prior to
November 10, 2014.
■ 3. Amend § 9.153 by revising
paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) and adding
paragraphs (c)(10) through (12) and (d)
to read as follows:
§ 9.153
Redwood Valley.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) The beginning point is in the
northeastern portion of the Ukiah map
at the point where State Highway 20
crosses the R11W/R12W range line
along the south bank of the East Fork of
the Russian River, T16N/R12W. From
the beginning point, proceed north
along the R11W/R12W range line,
crossing onto the Redwood Valley map,
to the northeast corner of section 1,
T16N/R12W; then
(2) Proceed west along the northern
boundary of section 1 to the section’s
northwest corner, T16N/R12W; then
(3) Proceed north along the eastern
boundary lines of sections 35, 26, 23,
14, 11, and 2 to the T17N/T18N
common boundary line at the northeast
corner of section 2, T17N/R12W; then
(4) Proceed west along the T17N/
T18N common line to the northwest
corner of section 6, T17N/R12W; then
(5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a
straight line, crossing onto the Laughlin
Range map, to the intersection of the
1,400-foot contour line and Bakers
Creek within McGee Canyon, section 25,
T17N/R13W; then
(6) Proceed southeasterly in a straight
line approximately 1.5 miles, crossing
onto the Redwood Valley map, to the
southeast corner of section 36, T17N/
R13W; then
(7) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.55 mile,
crossing onto the Laughlin Range map,
to the intersection of U.S. Highway 101
and an unnamed road known locally as
Reeves Canyon Road, section 1, T16N/
R13W; then
(8) Proceed southeasterly in a straight
line approximately 0.9 mile, crossing
onto the Redwood Valley map, to the
southeast corner of section 1, T16N/
R13W; then
E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM
09OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(9) Proceed south-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.65 mile to
the intersection of an unnamed,
unimproved road and an unnamed,
intermittent stream, approximately 500
feet south of Seward Creek, section 12,
T16N/R13W; then
(10) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.9 mile,
crossing onto the Laughlin Range map,
to the southwest corner of section 12,
T16N/R13W; then
(11) Proceed east-southeasterly in a
straight line, crossing onto the far
northeastern corner of the Orrs Springs
map, then continuing onto the Ukiah
map, to the intersection of State
Highway 20 and a road known locally
as North State Street (old U.S. Highway
101), north of Calpella, T16N/R12W;
then
(12) Proceed easterly along State
Highway 20, returning to the beginning
point.
(d) Transition period. A label
containing the words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’
in the brand name or as an appellation
of origin approved prior to November
10, 2014 may be used on wine bottled
before November 10, 2016 if the wine
conforms to the standards for use of the
label set forth in § 4.25 or § 4.39(i) of
this chapter in effect prior to November
10, 2014.
■ 4. Add § 9.237 to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 9.237
Eagle Peak Mendocino County.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is ‘‘Eagle
Peak Mendocino County’’. For purposes
of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Eagle Peak
Mendocino County’’ is a term of
viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The four United
States Geographical Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to
determine the boundary of the Eagle
Peak Mendocino County viticultural
area are titled:
(1) Laughlin Range, California,
provisional edition 1991;
(2) Redwood Valley, Calif., 1960,
photo revised 1975;
(3) Orrs Springs, California,
provisional edition 1991; and
(4) Greenough Ridge, California,
provisional edition 1991.
(c) Boundary. The Eagle Peak
Mendocino County viticultural area is
located in Mendocino County,
California. The boundary of the Eagle
Peak Mendocino County viticultural
area is as follows:
(1) The beginning point is located on
the Laughlin Range map within McGee
Canyon at the point where the 1,600foot contour line intersects with Bakers
Creek near the western boundary of
section 25, T17N/R13W. From the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Oct 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
beginning point, proceed southeasterly
(downstream) approximately 0.2 mile
along Bakers Creek to the creek’s
intersection with the 1,400-foot contour
line, section 25, T17N/R13W; then
(2) Proceed southeasterly in a straight
line approximately 1.5 miles, crossing
onto the Redwood Valley map, to the
southeast corner of section 36, T17N/
R13W; then
(3) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.55 mile,
crossing onto the Laughlin Range map,
to the intersection of U.S. Highway 101
and an unnamed road locally known as
Reeves Canyon Road, section 1, T16N/
R13W; then
(4) Proceed southeasterly in a straight
line approximately 0.9 mile, crossing
onto the Redwood Valley map, to the
southeast corner of section 1, T16N/
R13W; then
(5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.65 mile to
the intersection of an unnamed,
unimproved road and an unnamed
intermittent stream located
approximately 500 feet south of Seward
Creek, section 12, T16N/R13W; then
(6) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.9 mile,
crossing onto the Laughlin Ridge map,
to the southwest corner of section 12,
T16N/R13W; then
(7) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.8 mile,
crossing onto the Orrs Springs map, to
the 1,883-foot elevation point in section
14, T16N/R13W; then
(8) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
series of three straight lines (totaling
approximately 3.15 miles in distance),
first to the 1,836-foot elevation point in
section 15, T16N/R13W; then to the
1,805-foot elevation point in section 16,
T16N/R13W; and then to the 2,251-foot
elevation point in section 20, T16W/
R13W; then
(9) Proceed south-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.8 mile to
the 2,562-foot elevation point, section
20, T16N/R13W; then
(10) Proceed north-northwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.8 mile to
the 2,218-foot elevation point, section
19, T16N/R13W; then
(11) Proceed northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 0.35 mile to
the 2,112-foot elevation point in the
southeast corner of section 18, T16N/
R13W; then
(12) Proceed north-northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 0.9 mile to
the 2,344-foot elevation point, section
17, T16N/R13W; then
(13) Proceed northwesterly in a
straight line approximately 1.8 miles,
crossing onto the Laughlin Range map,
to the intersection of the R13W/R14W
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60973
common boundary line and an
unnamed, unimproved road east of
Leonard Lake, section 1, T16N/R14W;
then
(14) Proceed west-northwesterly along
the unnamed, unimproved road to the
road’s intersection with the 2,000 foot
contour line between Leonard Lake and
Mud Lake, section 1, T16N/R13W; then
(15) Proceed north-northwesterly in a
straight line approximately 1.6 miles,
crossing onto the Greenough Ridge map,
to the 2,246-foot elevation point, section
26, T17N/R14W; then
(16) Proceed northerly in a straight
line approximately 0.9 mile to the
2,214-foot elevation point, section 23,
T17N/R14W; then
(17) Proceed northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 1 mile,
crossing onto the Laughlin Range map,
to the peak of Impassable Rocks, section
24, T17N/R14W; then
(18) Proceed northwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.95 mile,
crossing onto the Greenough Ridge map,
to the 2,617-foot elevation point, section
14, T17N/R14W, and continue
northwesterly in a straight line
approximately 0.8 mile to the 2,836-foot
elevation point of Irene Peak, section 11,
T17N/R14W; then
(19) Proceed northerly in a straight
line approximately 1 mile to the
intersection of 3 unnamed unimproved
roads approximately 0.3 mile west of
the headwaters of Walker Creek (locally
known as the intersection of Blackhawk
Drive, Walker Lake Road, and Williams
Ranch Road) section 2, T17N/R14W;
then
(20) Proceed easterly along the
unnamed improved road, locally known
as Blackhawk Drive, approximately 1.35
miles, crossing onto the Laughlin range
map, to the road’s intersection with the
section 2 eastern boundary line, T17N/
R14W; then
(21) Proceed east-northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 0.75 mile,
returning to the 2,213 elevation point
near the northeast corner of section 1,
T17N/R14W; then
(22) Proceed southeasterly in a
straight line approximately 3.55 miles to
BM 1893 (0.2 mile south of Ridge) in
section 16, T17N/R13W, and then
continue southeasterly in a straight line
approximately 0.85 mile to a radio
facility located at approximately 2,840
feet in elevation in the Laughlin Range,
section 15, T17N/R13W; then
(23) Proceed easterly in a straight line
approximately 0.85 mile to another
radio facility located at approximately
3,320 feet in elevation in the Laughlin
Range, section 14, T17N/R13W; then
(24) Proceed southerly in a straight
line approximately 1.5 miles to the
E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM
09OCR1
60974
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
2,452-foot elevation point in section 26,
T17N/R13W; then
(25) Proceed southeasterly in a
straight line approximately 0.4 mile to
the intersection of the 1,800-foot
contour line with Bakers Creek within
McGee Canyon, section 26, T17N/
R13W; then
(26) Proceed southeasterly
(downstream) approximately 0.2 mile
along Bakers Creek, returning to the
beginning point.
Signed: August 25, 2014.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: August 29, 2014.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2014–24177 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4110–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 552
RIN 1235–AA05
Application of the Fair Labor
Standards Act to Domestic Service;
Announcement of Time-Limited NonEnforcement Policy
Wage and Hour Division,
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Policy statement.
AGENCY:
The Department of Labor’s
(Department) October 1, 2013, Final
Rule amending regulations regarding
domestic service employment, which
extends Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) protections to most home care
workers will become effective on
January 1, 2015. The Department is not
changing this effective date. This
document announces a time-limited
non-enforcement policy. For six
months, from January 1, 2015 to June
30, 2015, the Department will not bring
enforcement actions against any
employer as to violations of FLSA
obligations resulting from the amended
regulations. For the following six
months, from July 1, 2015 to December
31, 2015, the Department will exercise
prosecutorial discretion in determining
whether to bring enforcement actions,
with particular consideration given to
the extent to which States and other
entities have made good faith efforts to
bring their home care programs into
compliance with the FLSA since
promulgation of the Final Rule.
Throughout the 12-month duration of
this policy, the Department will
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:15 Oct 08, 2014
Jkt 235001
continue extensive outreach and
technical assistance efforts, in particular
with States regarding publicly funded
home care programs.
DATES: Enforcement of the final rule
published October 1, 2013, at 78 FR
60454: From January 1, 2015, to June 30,
2015, the Department will not bring
enforcement actions against any
employer as to violations of FLSA
obligations resulting from the amended
regulations; from July 1, 2015, to
December 31, 2015, the Department will
exercise prosecutorial discretion in
determining whether to bring
enforcement actions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Hancock, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy, U.S.
Department of Labor, Wage and Hour
Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room S–3502, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
343–5940 (this is not a toll-free
number), email: HomeCare@dol.gov.
Copies of this document may be
obtained in alternative formats (Large
Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc),
upon request, by calling (202) 693–0675
(not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD
callers may dial toll-free (877) 889–5627
to obtain information or request
materials in alternative formats.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Non-Enforcement Policy
On October 1, 2013, the Wage and
Hour Division of the Department of
Labor (Department) issued Application
of the Fair Labor Standards Act to
Domestic Service; Final Rule, 78 FR
60454 (Home Care Final Rule or Final
Rule). The Final Rule amended the
domestic service employment
regulations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA or Act), 29 U.S.C.
201 et seq., which are contained in 29
CFR Part 552. Among other changes, the
Final Rule (1) modified the definition of
‘‘companionship services’’ and (2)
prohibited third party employers (i.e.,
employers of domestic service
employees other than the individuals
receiving services or the individuals’
families or households) from claiming
either the companionship services
exemption from the FLSA’s minimum
wage and overtime compensation
requirements or the live-in domestic
service employee exemption from the
FLSA’s overtime compensation
requirement. See 78 FR 60463–73,
60480–83, 60557 (relevant regulatory
changes to be codified at 29 CFR 552.6,
552.109).
The Department explained in the
preamble to the Final Rule that the
changes to the domestic service
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
employment regulations should go into
effect as soon as practicable because
they were intended to serve the
important purpose of extending basic
labor standards to home care workers,
which in turn helps ensure that
individuals and their families can rely
on a professional, trained workforce to
provide high-quality services. 78 FR
60455, 60495. The Department also
acknowledged, however, that complex
Federal and State systems fund a
significant portion of the home care
services provided across the country,
and making adjustments to operations,
programs, and budgets in order to
comply with the FLSA could take time.
Id. at 60494–95. Therefore, in response
to comments received in the course of
the rulemaking process, the Department
set an effective date of January 1, 2015,
an unprecedented 15 months after the
publication of the Final Rule. Id.1
Since promulgating the Final Rule,
the Department has conducted extensive
technical assistance for the regulated
community. Specifically, the
Department has directly reached
thousands of people through over 100
webinars, conference calls, meetings,
and presentations, engaging
representatives from State governments,
associations of State Medicaid and other
relevant agencies, consumers, disability
and senior citizens’ advocates, veterans’
organizations, worker representatives,
and industry groups, among others.
Furthermore, to help stakeholders learn
more about the changes associated with
the Final Rule, the Department created
a home care Web page, which contains
links to fact sheets, FAQs, webinar
recordings, interactive web tools, and
other materials, including two
Administrator’s Interpretations issued
this year in response to stakeholder
questions regarding the application of
the FLSA to shared living arrangements
and joint employment of home care
workers by public entities in consumerdirected programs. See www.dol.gov/
whd/homecare. Moreover, the
Department has engaged in targeted
outreach to the governments of all 50
States. Through this outreach, the
Department has provided extensive
technical assistance to States as they
implement the Home Care Final Rule in
publicly funded programs in an effort to
encourage implementation of the Final
Rule in a manner that expands wage
protections for most home care workers
1 Typically, employers subject to FLSA regulatory
changes have 30 or 60 days to adjust before a
rulemaking becomes effective. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
801(a)(3)(A). Prior to the Home Care Final Rule, the
longest effective date delay for a Wage and Hour
Division rule was 120 days. See 78 FR 60495 (citing
69 FR 22126 (Apr. 23, 2004)).
E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM
09OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60968-60974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24177]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2013-0004; T.D. TTB-124; Ref: Notice No. 135]
RIN 1513-AB96
Establishment of the Eagle Peak Mendocino County Viticultural
Area and Realignments of the Mendocino and Redwood Valley Viticultural
Areas
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes
the approximately 26,260-acre ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County''
viticultural area in Mendocino County, California. The viticultural
area lies entirely within the multi-county North Coast viticultural
area. TTB also modifies the boundaries of the Mendocino viticultural
area and the Redwood Valley viticultural area to eliminate overlaps
with the Eagle Peak Mendocino County viticultural area. TTB designates
viticultural areas to
[[Page 60969]]
allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to
allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
DATES: This final rule is effective November 10, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various
authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated
December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions
and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of
the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in
part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other
characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its
geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure
for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may
petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section
9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for
petitions for the establishment of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA
must include the following:
Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
A narrative description of the features of the proposed
AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey
(USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the
boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Eagle Peak Mendocino County Petition
TTB received three petitions on behalf of local grape growers from
Ralph Jens Carter, one proposing the establishment of the ``Eagle Peak
Mendocino County'' AVA and two separate companion petitions proposing
the modification of the boundaries of the existing ``Mendocino'' AVA
(27 CFR 9.93) and ``Redwood Valley'' AVA (27 CFR 9.153). The proposed
AVA and the two existing AVAs lie entirely within Mendocino County and
the multi-county North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA contains approximately 26,260 acres, of which
approximately 120 acres are dedicated to 16 commercially producing
vineyards. The proposed AVA lies to the west of both the Redwood Valley
AVA and the eastern portion of the V-shaped Mendocino AVA. According to
the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA include its marine-influenced climate, strong
breezes, mountainous topography, and shallow soils with low water-
holding capabilities.
As originally proposed, a small portion of the Eagle Peak Mendocino
County AVA would overlap portions of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino
AVAs. To eliminate the potential overlaps, the petitioner later
proposed modifying the boundaries of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino
AVAs. The proposed boundary modifications would eliminate the potential
overlaps and would remove the overlapped areas from the Redwood Valley
and Mendocino AVAs. The proposed modifications would reduce the size of
the 32,047-acre Redwood Valley AVA by approximately 1,430 acres and
reduce the size of the 327,437-acre Mendocino AVA by approximately
1,900 acres. The overlapping areas would then become part of the Eagle
Peak Mendocino County AVA.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 135 in the Federal Register on June 27,
2013 (78 FR 38613), proposing to establish the Eagle Peak Mendocino
County AVA and modify the boundaries of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the
petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for
the proposed viticultural area. The distinguishing features of the
proposed viticultural area include climate, geology, topography, and
soils. The notice also compared the distinguishing features of the
proposed viticultural area to the surrounding areas. For a description
of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing
features of the proposed viticultural area, and for a comparison of the
distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area to the
surrounding areas, see Notice No. 135.
In Notice No. 135, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the
name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in
support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed AVA's location
within the existing North Coast AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether
the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing
features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates the proposed
viticultural area from the North Coast AVA. TTB also asked for comments
on whether the geographical features of the proposed viticultural area
are so distinguishable from the surrounding North Coast AVA that the
[[Page 60970]]
proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA should no longer be part of
the existing viticultural area. Finally, TTB asked for comments on the
proposed modification of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs and
whether the evidence presented in the proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino
County AVA petition sufficiently differentiated the overlapped regions
from the established AVAs to warrant removing the overlapped regions
from the two AVAs and including the overlapping regions entirely within
the Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA. The comment period on Notice No.
135 closed on August 26, 2013.
In response to Notice No. 135, TTB received a total of seven
comments, six of which supported the establishment of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County viticultural area and the realignment of the Redwood
Valley and Mendocino AVA boundaries. Commenters included local
residents, vineyard owners, and winemakers, as well as a local winery
organization. None of the comments received during the comment period
addressed the question of whether the Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA
is so distinguishable from the North Coast AVA that it should no longer
be part of the North Coast AVA. TTB received no comments in opposition
of either the Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA, as proposed, or the
proposed boundary modifications.
Only one of the seven comments specifically addressed the proposed
modification of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs' boundaries
(comment 3). The commenter, who owns a vineyard that is within the
proposed AVA but not within the proposed realignment area, supported
the proposed boundary modifications because ``[t]he Eagle Peak area is
all upland, mountainous terrain with shallow soils, while Redwood
Valley is mostly level with deep soils'' and the Mendocino AVA
``contains many different characteristics and is not limited to the
upland area.'' TTB notes that there are two vineyards located within
the proposed realignment area, and the petition included letters from
both vineyard owners in support of the proposed boundary modifications.
The seventh comment (comment 7) requested an extension of the
comment period so that the commenter could further review the proposed
rule. The extension request was received too late for TTB to extend the
original comment period. Therefore, TTB published Notice No. 135A in
the Federal Register on August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53103), re-opening the
comment period for an additional 60 days, until October 28, 2013.
Comments Received During the Re-opened Comment Period
During the re-opened comment period, TTB received six additional
comments regarding the proposed establishment of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA and the realignment of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs. Two of the six comments specifically supported the
proposed AVA (comments 9 and 10). One of the two comments was from a
wine marketing and sales consultant, and the second comment was from
the United States Representative from the district that includes the
proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County viticultural area. Comment 10 also
specifically supported the proposed realignment of the Redwood Valley
AVA boundary, stating that the proposed realignment area consists of
mountainous and hillside terrain that is more consistent with the
terrain of the proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA than the
flatter, lower terrain found within the majority of the Redwood Valley
AVA.
Two of the comments received during the re-opened comment period
did not address the substance of the proposed rulemaking. One of those
two commenters stated that he neither supported nor opposed
establishment of the proposed AVA or the proposed boundary
modifications, but rather requested that TTB remove the periods from
the township and range designations in the proposed regulatory text of
Sec. 9.93 so as to conform to the style of the current regulatory text
for that section (comment 8). TTB notes that the periods in the
proposed regulatory text are consistent with the style of the current
regulatory text of Sec. 9.93, and the proposed amendment to the
section will be adopted as final without change. The other comment
(comment 11), which was addressed to the Department of Justice, called
for stronger alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives transfer
regulations, topics which are outside the scope of the proposed rule.
Accordingly, that topic will not be addressed in this rulemaking.
Comments Regarding Proposed AVA Name
The final two comments received during the re-opened comment period
addressed the proposed AVA name. One comment was in the form of a
letter from an attorney on behalf of his client, Fetzer Vineyards of
Hopland, California (comment 12). Fetzer Vineyards is currently owned
by Vi[ntilde]a Concha y Toro SA and is no longer associated with the
Fetzer family, including Jacob and Ben Fetzer, who own Masut Vineyards,
and John Fetzer, who owns Saracina Vineyards. Both Masut Vineyards and
Saracina Vineyards are within the proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County
AVA, and Jacob, John, and Ben Fetzer are signatories to the petition to
establish that AVA.
Comment 12 stated that Fetzer Vineyards does not object to the
establishment of the proposed AVA but does object to the proposed Eagle
Peak Mendocino County name. According to the comment, the petitioners
failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate both that the
region of the proposed AVA is known as ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County''
and that the proposed name is associated with an area known for
viticulture. Instead, the comment stated that the region is known as
either ``Forsythe Creek'' or ``Walker Valley.'' As evidence, the
comment referenced USDA soil surveys from 1910 that were included in
the original petition. In those soil surveys, the region of the
proposed AVA is described as a ``cohesive unit, referred to as Forsythe
Creek Valley and Forsythe Creek Gap.'' The comment also noted that
there is a large valley within the proposed AVA that is labeled on USGS
maps as ``Walker Valley.''
Finally, comment 12 stated that if TTB established the proposed AVA
with the name ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County,'' the public would confuse
the AVA name with the Fetzer Vineyards' ``Eagle Peak Merlot'' brand
name. Furthermore, comment 12 claimed that Fetzer Vineyards would
become legally barred from continuing the use of its brand name, since
it would be unable to source enough grapes from within the proposed AVA
or Mendocino County.
In response to comment 12, Jacob Fetzer, owner of Masut Vineyards,
submitted a comment (comment 13) on behalf of the petitioners for the
proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA. Comment 13 challenged the
claim that the petition failed to provide adequate evidence that the
proposed AVA is known as ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County.'' The comment
also disagreed with the claim that the proposed name would cause
consumer confusion and force Fetzer Vineyards to abandon its ``Eagle
Peak Merlot'' brand name.
After consideration of the petition and the two comments regarding
the proposed name, TTB has determined that the petition to establish
the Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA contained sufficient evidence
showing that the region of the proposed AVA is currently
[[Page 60971]]
known by that name. TTB finds that comment 12 did not provide evidence
that the region of the proposed AVA is not known as Eagle Peak
Mendocino County, nor did it provide any evidence that the region is
currently known as either ``Forsythe Creek'' or ``Walker Valley.''
Although old USDA soil surveys do refer to the area as ``Forsythe Creek
Valley'' or ``Forsythe Creek Gap,'' TTB regulations require the name
evidence to show that the region of the proposed AVA is currently known
by the proposed name.
With respect to the statement in comment 12 that the petition must
provide evidence that the proposed AVA name has historical significance
with regard to viticulture, TTB notes that its regulations (27 CFR
9.12(a)(1)) only require the petition to demonstrate that the proposed
AVA name is ``currently and directly associated with an area in which
viticulture exists.'' The regulations do not require that the proposed
name itself be associated with viticulture, only that viticulture must
be taking place within the region known by the proposed AVA name. The
petition to establish the Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA provided the
names of the commercial vineyards within the proposed AVA as evidence
of current viticultural activity within the region known by the
proposed name.
Finally, with respect to the claim that Fetzer Vineyards would be
forced to abandon its ``Eagle Peak Merlot'' brand name if the proposed
AVA is established with the name Eagle Peak Mendocino County, TTB notes
that Notice No. 135 explicitly proposed that only the full name of the
proposed AVA be designated as a term of viticultural significance.
Furthermore, Notice No. 135 specifically stated, and this rulemaking
re-confirms, that any wine bottlers using ``Eagle Peak,'' standing
alone, as a brand name on a wine label would be able to continue to use
the brand name. The establishment of the proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino
County AVA would not affect Fetzer Vineyards' ability to bottle wine
under the ``Eagle Peak Merlot'' brand name, regardless of where the
grapes used to make the wine were grown. TTB also believes that the
proposed AVA name ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County'' is sufficiently
distinct from the brand name ``Eagle Peak Merlot'' and is unlikely to
cause consumer confusion.
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition and all 13 of the comments
received in response to Notice No. 135, TTB finds that the evidence
provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the
approximately 26,260-acre Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA and the
modification of the boundaries of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino
AVAs. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d)
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB
regulations, TTB establishes the ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County'' AVA in
Mendocino County, California.
TTB has also determined that the land within the AVA will remain
part of the larger North Coast AVA. The Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA
experiences the marine fog and breezes that are the primary features of
the North Coast AVA. However, due to its much smaller size, the soil,
terrain, and climate of the Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA are more
uniform than those of the large, multi-county North Coast AVA. The
uniqueness of the soil, terrain, and climate of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA also distinguish the AVA from the surrounding
region. Therefore, TTB is recognizing the Eagle Peak Mendocino County
area as a distinct AVA within the larger North Coast AVA.
Furthermore, TTB modifies the boundaries of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs as described in Notice No. 135. TTB has determined that
the mountainous terrain, shallow soils, cool growing season
temperatures, and gusty winds of the realignment area described in
Notice No. 135 are more consistent with the features of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA than with the low level valleys, deep alluvial
soils, and warm temperatures of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs.
Therefore, TTB is removing the realignment area from the Redwood Valley
and Mendocino AVAs and placing it entirely within the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County AVA. These changes are effective 30 days from the date
of publication of this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary description of the Eagle Peak Mendocino
County AVA and the modified boundaries of the Redwood Valley and
Mendocino AVAs in the regulatory text published at the end of this
final rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. With the establishment of this AVA, its name, ``Eagle
Peak Mendocino County,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural
significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the regulation
clarifies this point. Once this final rule becomes effective, wine
bottlers using the name ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County'' in a brand
name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the
origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to
use the viticultural name as an appellation of origin.
The establishment of the Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA will not
affect any existing viticultural area, and any bottlers using ``North
Coast'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made
from grapes grown within the North Coast viticultural areas will not be
affected by the establishment of this new viticultural area. The
establishment of the Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA will allow
vintners to use ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County'' and ``North Coast'' as
appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the
Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA if the wines meet the eligibility
requirements for the appellation.
For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that
includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived
from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the
wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the
wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name
appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the
bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in
a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new
label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA
name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7,
1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Transition Period
Once this final rule to establish the Eagle Peak Mendocino County
AVA and to modify the boundaries of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino
AVAs becomes effective, a transition rule will apply to labels for
wines produced from grapes grown in the areas that were formerly within
the Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs. A label containing the words
``Redwood Valley'' or ``Mendocino'' (other than in the
[[Page 60972]]
phrase ``Mendocino County'' or ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County'') in the
brand name or as an appellation of origin may be used on such wine
bottled for up to two years from the effective date of this final rule,
provided that such label was approved prior to the effective date of
this final rule and that the wine conforms to the standards for use of
the label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in effect prior to the
final rule. At the end of this two-year transition period, if a wine is
no longer eligible for labeling with the Redwood Valley or Mendocino
AVA names (e.g., less than 85 percent of the wine is derived from
grapes grown in the Redwood Valley or Mendocino AVAs, as modified in
this final rule), then a label containing the words ``Redwood Valley''
or ``Mendocino'' (other than in the phrase ``Mendocino County'' or
``Eagle Peak Mendocino County'') in the brand name or as an appellation
of origin would not be permitted on the bottle. TTB believes that the
two-year period should provide affected label holders with adequate
time to use up any existing labels. This transition period is described
in the regulatory text for the Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs
published at the end of this final rule. TTB notes that wine eligible
for labeling with the Redwood Valley or Mendocino viticultural areas
names under the new boundaries of the Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs
will not be affected by this two-year transition period.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a
viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts
and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this final rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27,
chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Amend Sec. 9.93 by revising paragraph (c)(7), redesignating
paragraphs (c)(8) through (19) as paragraphs (c)(16) through (27), and
adding new paragraphs (c)(8) through (15), and adding paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 9.93 Mendocino.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(7) Thence due west along the T.18N./T.17N. common line until the
common line intersects with the R.13W./R.12W. common line;
(8) Thence in a straight line in a south-southwesterly direction,
crossing onto the Willits map, to the intersection of the 1,600-foot
contour line and Baker Creek (within McGee Canyon) along the west
boundary line of Section 25, T.17N./R.13W.;
(9) Thence in a southeasterly direction (downstream) along Bakers
Creek to where the creek intersects with the 1,400-foot contour line in
Section 25, T.17N/R.13W.;
(10) Thence in a straight line in a southeasterly direction to the
southeast corner of Section 36, T.17N./R.13W.;
(11) Thence in a straight line in a west-southwesterly direction to
the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and an unnamed road known locally
as Reeves Canyon Road in Section 1, T.16N./R.13W.;
(12) Thence in a straight line in a southeasterly direction to the
southeast corner of Section 1, T.16N./R.13W.;
(13) Thence in a straight line in a south-southwesterly direction
to the intersection of an unnamed, unimproved road and an unnamed,
intermittent stream, approximately 500 feet south of Seward Creek, in
Section 12, T.16N./R.13W.;
(14) Thence in a straight line in a west-southwesterly direction to
the southwest corner of Section 12, T.16N./R.13W.;
(15) Thence in a straight line in a southwesterly direction to the
southwest corner of Section 14, T.16N./R.13W.;
* * * * *
(d) Transition period. A label containing the word ``Mendocino'' in
the brand name (other than in the phrase ``Mendocino County'' or
``Eagle Peak Mendocino County'') or as an appellation of origin
approved prior to November 10, 2014 may be used on wine bottled before
November 10, 2016 if the wine conforms to the standards for use of the
label set forth in Sec. 4.25 or Sec. 4.39(i) of this chapter in
effect prior to November 10, 2014.
0
3. Amend Sec. 9.153 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) and
adding paragraphs (c)(10) through (12) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 9.153 Redwood Valley.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The beginning point is in the northeastern portion of the Ukiah
map at the point where State Highway 20 crosses the R11W/R12W range
line along the south bank of the East Fork of the Russian River, T16N/
R12W. From the beginning point, proceed north along the R11W/R12W range
line, crossing onto the Redwood Valley map, to the northeast corner of
section 1, T16N/R12W; then
(2) Proceed west along the northern boundary of section 1 to the
section's northwest corner, T16N/R12W; then
(3) Proceed north along the eastern boundary lines of sections 35,
26, 23, 14, 11, and 2 to the T17N/T18N common boundary line at the
northeast corner of section 2, T17N/R12W; then
(4) Proceed west along the T17N/T18N common line to the northwest
corner of section 6, T17N/R12W; then
(5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a straight line, crossing onto
the Laughlin Range map, to the intersection of the 1,400-foot contour
line and Bakers Creek within McGee Canyon, section 25, T17N/R13W; then
(6) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line approximately 1.5
miles, crossing onto the Redwood Valley map, to the southeast corner of
section 36, T17N/R13W; then
(7) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line approximately
0.55 mile, crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, to the intersection of
U.S. Highway 101 and an unnamed road known locally as Reeves Canyon
Road, section 1, T16N/R13W; then
(8) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line approximately 0.9
mile, crossing onto the Redwood Valley map, to the southeast corner of
section 1, T16N/R13W; then
[[Page 60973]]
(9) Proceed south-southwesterly in a straight line approximately
0.65 mile to the intersection of an unnamed, unimproved road and an
unnamed, intermittent stream, approximately 500 feet south of Seward
Creek, section 12, T16N/R13W; then
(10) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line approximately
0.9 mile, crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, to the southwest corner
of section 12, T16N/R13W; then
(11) Proceed east-southeasterly in a straight line, crossing onto
the far northeastern corner of the Orrs Springs map, then continuing
onto the Ukiah map, to the intersection of State Highway 20 and a road
known locally as North State Street (old U.S. Highway 101), north of
Calpella, T16N/R12W; then
(12) Proceed easterly along State Highway 20, returning to the
beginning point.
(d) Transition period. A label containing the words ``Redwood
Valley'' in the brand name or as an appellation of origin approved
prior to November 10, 2014 may be used on wine bottled before November
10, 2016 if the wine conforms to the standards for use of the label set
forth in Sec. 4.25 or Sec. 4.39(i) of this chapter in effect prior to
November 10, 2014.
0
4. Add Sec. 9.237 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.237 Eagle Peak Mendocino County.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County''. For purposes of part 4 of
this chapter, ``Eagle Peak Mendocino County'' is a term of viticultural
significance.
(b) Approved maps. The four United States Geographical Survey
(USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary
of the Eagle Peak Mendocino County viticultural area are titled:
(1) Laughlin Range, California, provisional edition 1991;
(2) Redwood Valley, Calif., 1960, photo revised 1975;
(3) Orrs Springs, California, provisional edition 1991; and
(4) Greenough Ridge, California, provisional edition 1991.
(c) Boundary. The Eagle Peak Mendocino County viticultural area is
located in Mendocino County, California. The boundary of the Eagle Peak
Mendocino County viticultural area is as follows:
(1) The beginning point is located on the Laughlin Range map within
McGee Canyon at the point where the 1,600-foot contour line intersects
with Bakers Creek near the western boundary of section 25, T17N/R13W.
From the beginning point, proceed southeasterly (downstream)
approximately 0.2 mile along Bakers Creek to the creek's intersection
with the 1,400-foot contour line, section 25, T17N/R13W; then
(2) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line approximately 1.5
miles, crossing onto the Redwood Valley map, to the southeast corner of
section 36, T17N/R13W; then
(3) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line approximately
0.55 mile, crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, to the intersection of
U.S. Highway 101 and an unnamed road locally known as Reeves Canyon
Road, section 1, T16N/R13W; then
(4) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line approximately 0.9
mile, crossing onto the Redwood Valley map, to the southeast corner of
section 1, T16N/R13W; then
(5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a straight line approximately
0.65 mile to the intersection of an unnamed, unimproved road and an
unnamed intermittent stream located approximately 500 feet south of
Seward Creek, section 12, T16N/R13W; then
(6) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line approximately 0.9
mile, crossing onto the Laughlin Ridge map, to the southwest corner of
section 12, T16N/R13W; then
(7) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line approximately 0.8
mile, crossing onto the Orrs Springs map, to the 1,883-foot elevation
point in section 14, T16N/R13W; then
(8) Proceed west-southwesterly in a series of three straight lines
(totaling approximately 3.15 miles in distance), first to the 1,836-
foot elevation point in section 15, T16N/R13W; then to the 1,805-foot
elevation point in section 16, T16N/R13W; and then to the 2,251-foot
elevation point in section 20, T16W/R13W; then
(9) Proceed south-southwesterly in a straight line approximately
0.8 mile to the 2,562-foot elevation point, section 20, T16N/R13W; then
(10) Proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line approximately
0.8 mile to the 2,218-foot elevation point, section 19, T16N/R13W; then
(11) Proceed northeasterly in a straight line approximately 0.35
mile to the 2,112-foot elevation point in the southeast corner of
section 18, T16N/R13W; then
(12) Proceed north-northeasterly in a straight line approximately
0.9 mile to the 2,344-foot elevation point, section 17, T16N/R13W; then
(13) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line approximately 1.8
miles, crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, to the intersection of the
R13W/R14W common boundary line and an unnamed, unimproved road east of
Leonard Lake, section 1, T16N/R14W; then
(14) Proceed west-northwesterly along the unnamed, unimproved road
to the road's intersection with the 2,000 foot contour line between
Leonard Lake and Mud Lake, section 1, T16N/R13W; then
(15) Proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line approximately
1.6 miles, crossing onto the Greenough Ridge map, to the 2,246-foot
elevation point, section 26, T17N/R14W; then
(16) Proceed northerly in a straight line approximately 0.9 mile to
the 2,214-foot elevation point, section 23, T17N/R14W; then
(17) Proceed northeasterly in a straight line approximately 1 mile,
crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, to the peak of Impassable Rocks,
section 24, T17N/R14W; then
(18) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line approximately 0.95
mile, crossing onto the Greenough Ridge map, to the 2,617-foot
elevation point, section 14, T17N/R14W, and continue northwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.8 mile to the 2,836-foot elevation point
of Irene Peak, section 11, T17N/R14W; then
(19) Proceed northerly in a straight line approximately 1 mile to
the intersection of 3 unnamed unimproved roads approximately 0.3 mile
west of the headwaters of Walker Creek (locally known as the
intersection of Blackhawk Drive, Walker Lake Road, and Williams Ranch
Road) section 2, T17N/R14W; then
(20) Proceed easterly along the unnamed improved road, locally
known as Blackhawk Drive, approximately 1.35 miles, crossing onto the
Laughlin range map, to the road's intersection with the section 2
eastern boundary line, T17N/R14W; then
(21) Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line approximately
0.75 mile, returning to the 2,213 elevation point near the northeast
corner of section 1, T17N/R14W; then
(22) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line approximately 3.55
miles to BM 1893 (0.2 mile south of Ridge) in section 16, T17N/R13W,
and then continue southeasterly in a straight line approximately 0.85
mile to a radio facility located at approximately 2,840 feet in
elevation in the Laughlin Range, section 15, T17N/R13W; then
(23) Proceed easterly in a straight line approximately 0.85 mile to
another radio facility located at approximately 3,320 feet in elevation
in the Laughlin Range, section 14, T17N/R13W; then
(24) Proceed southerly in a straight line approximately 1.5 miles
to the
[[Page 60974]]
2,452-foot elevation point in section 26, T17N/R13W; then
(25) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line approximately 0.4
mile to the intersection of the 1,800-foot contour line with Bakers
Creek within McGee Canyon, section 26, T17N/R13W; then
(26) Proceed southeasterly (downstream) approximately 0.2 mile
along Bakers Creek, returning to the beginning point.
Signed: August 25, 2014.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: August 29, 2014.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2014-24177 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4110-31-P
