78944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Current year’s storage and 

handling costs, beginning inventory, 

and current year’s purchases, as defined 

in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(D)(2) of this 

section, do not include costs that are 

specifically described in § 1.263A– 

1(e)(3)(ii) or cost reductions described 

in § 1.471–3(e) as properly allocable 

only to property that has been sold or, 

for inventory property, deemed to be 

sold under the inventory cost flow 

assumption (such as first-in, first-out; 

last-in, first-out; or a specific-goods 

method) a taxpayer uses to identify the 

costs in ending inventory. 

(E) * * * 

(3) Current year’s purchasing costs 

and current year’s purchases, as defined 

in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(E)(2) of this 

section, do not include costs that are 

specifically described in § 1.263A– 

1(e)(3)(ii) or cost reductions described 

in § 1.471–3(e) as properly allocable 

only to property that has been sold or, 

for inventory property, deemed to be 

sold under the inventory cost flow 

assumption (such as first-in, first-out; 

last-in, first-out; or a specific-goods 

method) a taxpayer uses to identify the 

costs in ending inventory. 

* * * * * 

(f) Effective/applicability date. 

Paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(C)(3), (d)(3)(i)(D)(3), 

and (d)(3)(i)(E)(3) of this section apply 

for taxable years ending on or after the 

date these regulations are published as 

final regulations in the Federal Register. 

Par. 6. Section 1.471–3 is amended 

by: 

1. Adding paragraphs (e) and (g). 

2. Designating the undesignated text 

following paragraph (d) as paragraph (f). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 1.471–3 Inventories at cost. 

* * * * * 

(e) The amount of an allowance, 

discount, or price rebate a taxpayer 

earns by selling specific merchandise is 

a reduction in the cost (as determined 

under paragraph (a), (b), or (d) of this 

section) of the merchandise sold or 

deemed to be sold under the inventory 

cost flow assumption (such as first-in, 

first-out; last-in, first-out; or a specificgoods method) the taxpayer uses to 

identify the costs in ending inventory. 

This amount decreases cost of goods 

sold and does not reduce the inventory 

cost or value of goods on hand at the 

end of the taxable year. 

* * * * * 

(g) Effective/applicability date. 

Paragraph (f) of this section applies to 

taxable years ending on or after the date 

these regulations are published as final 

regulations in the Federal Register. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31597 Filed 12–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2010–0003; Notice No. 

112; re: Notice Nos. 105 and 107] 

RIN 1513–AB41 

Proposed Establishment of the Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas Viticultural Area; 

Comment Period Reopening 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau is reopening the 

comment period for Notice No. 105, 

which concerned a proposal to establish 

an American viticultural area having the 

name Pine Mountain-Mayacamas. This 

reopening of the comment period 

solicits comments from the public on 

issues that were raised in public 

comments received in response to 

Notice No. 105. Three specific issues 

which we seek comments on concern 

the proper name for the proposed 

viticultural area, the viticultural 

significance of a suggested alternative 

name for the viticultural area, and the 

propriety of expanding the boundary of 

the proposed viticultural area. 

DATES: We must receive written 

comments on or before February 15, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on 

this notice to one of the following 

addresses: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Use the 

comment form for this notice as posted 

within Docket No. TTB–2010–0003 on 

‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal erulemaking portal, to submit comments 

via the Internet; 

• Mail: Director, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, 

Washington, DC 20044–4412. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of 

Mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 

200–E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this notice for specific instructions and 

requirements for submitting comments, 

and for information on how to request 

a public hearing. 

You may view copies of all published 

notices and all comments received 

about this proposal within Docket No. 

TTB–2010–0003 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

this docket is posted on the TTB Web 

site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 105. 

You also may view copies of all 

published notices, all supporting 

materials, and any comments we receive 

about this proposal by appointment at 

the TTB Information Resource Center, 

1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20220. Please call 202–453–2270 to 

make an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elisabeth C. Kann, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW., Suite 200–E, Washington, DC 

20220; phone 202–453–2002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petition History 

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau (TTB) received a petition 

from Sara Schorske of Compliance 

Service of America, prepared and filed 

on her own behalf and on behalf of local 

wine industry members, to establish the 

4,600-acre ‘‘Pine Mountain-Mayacmas’’ 

American viticultural area in northern 

California. About two-thirds of the 

proposed viticultural area lies in the 

extreme southern portion of Mendocino 

County, with the remaining one-third 

located in the extreme northern portion 

of Sonoma County. The proposed Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area is 

totally within the multicounty North 

Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.30), 

and it overlaps the northernmost 

portions of the established Alexander 

Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.53) 

and the Northern Sonoma viticultural 

area (27 CFR 9.70). 

In Notice No. 105, published in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 29686) on May 

27, 2010, TTB described the petitioners’ 

rationale for the proposed establishment 

of the Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticultural area and requested 

comments on the proposal on or before 

July 26, 2010. 

On July 16, 2010, TTB received a 

letter request from attorney Richard 

Mendelson on behalf of the Napa Valley 

Vintners (NVV), a wine industry trade 

association. The request explained that 

due to periodic scheduling of the NVV’s 

committee and board of directors 

meetings, the group would be unable to 

meet the original July 26, 2010, 

comment deadline for Notice No. 105. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 78945 

The letter therefore requested a 45-day 

extension to the comment period for 

Notice No. 105 to allow the NVV to 

complete and thoroughly vet its 

comments on the proposed viticultural 

area. In response to that request, on July 

26, 2010, TTB published in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 43446) Notice No. 107 

to extend the comment period for Notice 

No. 105 to September 9, 2010. 

Comments Received 

During the course of the original and 

extended comment period on Notice No. 

105, TTB received and posted 85 

comments from 70 groups and 

individuals; those comments may be 

viewed at the Regulations.gov Web site 

referred to under the ADDRESSES caption 

in this document. Commenters included 

36 industry members and 34 nonindustry individuals. Of the 

commenters, 54 supported, and 16 

opposed, establishment of the Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area 

with the proposed name and boundary 

line. The comments in opposition to the 

proposal as published raised three 

issues that could warrant a change in 

the regulatory text proposed in Notice 

No. 105: (1) The appropriateness of the 

proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

name; (2) the viticultural significance of 

a suggested modified name for the 

proposed viticultural area; and (3) the 

inclusion of additional acreage within 

the boundary of the viticultural area. 

With regard to the appropriateness of 

the Pine Mountain-Mayacmas name, 

some commenters questioned the 

‘‘Mayacmas’’ portion of the name 

because ‘‘Mayacmas’’ is associated with 

the four counties of Napa, Sonoma, 

Lake, and Mendocino in northern 

California rather than just the smaller 

region within the proposed viticultural 

area boundary. A number of 

commenters supported use of the 

‘‘Cloverdale Peak’’ name instead of 

‘‘Mayacmas.’’ The following comments 

in response to Notice No. 105 stated 

opposition to the Pine MountainMayacmas name: Nos. 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 

50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 65, 76, 78, 

79, 81, and 82. Comments that 

specifically supported the name change 

to ‘‘Pine Mountain-Cloverdale Peak’’ 

were as follows: Nos. 61, 62, 68, 69, 70, 

71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 83, 84, and 85. 

The comments supporting a 

modification of the name of the 

viticultural area also give rise to the 

companion issue of the viticultural 

significance of the modified name. The 

following comments addressed the 

viticultural significance of the ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Cloverdale Peak’’ name: Nos. 

61, 62, 68, 69, 71, 75, 77, 80, and 83. 

Finally, one comment, No. 68, 

suggested that if ‘‘Pine MountainCloverdale Peak’’ is adopted as the 

viticultural area name, an additional 

500 acres along the northern border 

should be included within the boundary 

line, in order to encompass Cloverdale 

Peak. Another commenter suggested in 

comments 58 and 67 that an additional 

40 acres along the southwest border be 

included within the boundary line. 

Determination To Re-Open Public 

Comment Period 

TTB reviewed all comments received 

in response to Notice No. 105 with 

reference to the original petition 

materials. We believe that the comment 

period for Notice No. 105, which 

extended from May 27, 2010 to 

September 9, 2010, was adequate to 

obtain comments on our initially 

proposed regulation. However, because 

of the potential affect on label holders 

if TTB were to adopt any of the changes 

proposed in the comments themselves, 

TTB has determined that it would be 

appropriate in this instance to re-open 

the comment period, for the specific 

purpose of obtaining further public 

comment on the three issues mentioned 

above that affect the original proposal, 

before taking any further regulatory 

action on this matter. 

TTB invites comments on the use of 

‘‘Cloverdale Peak’’ as a geographical 

name in conjunction with ‘‘Pine 

Mountain’’ to form the ‘‘Pine MountainCloverdale Peak’’ viticultural area name. 

Furthermore, the Bureau invites 

comments on the viticultural 

significance of the full name ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Cloverdale Peak’’ and on the 

viticultural significance of ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Cloverdale,’’ ‘‘Cloverdale 

Peak,’’ and ‘‘Cloverdale’’ standing alone. 

As TTB pointed out in this regard in 

Notice No. 105, for a wine to be eligible 

to use a viticultural area name or other 

term of viticultural significance as an 

appellation of origin or in a brand name, 

at least 85 percent of the wine must be 

derived from grapes grown within the 

area represented by that name or other 

term, and the wine must meet the other 

conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If 

the wine is not eligible to use the 

viticultural area name as an appellation 

of origin, and that name or other term 

of viticultural significance appears in 

the brand name, then the label is not in 

compliance and the bottler must change 

the brand name and obtain approval of 

a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural 

area name or other term of viticultural 

significance appears in another 

reference on the label in a misleading 

manner, the bottler would have to 

obtain approval of a new label. 

Finally, TTB invites comments on 

whether the boundary line should be 

expanded as suggested in the comments. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

The specific purpose of this comment 

solicitation is to invite comments from 

interested members of the public on the 

three issues described in this document 

that were raised in public comments 

received in response to Notice No. 105. 

Please provide any available specific 

information in support of your 

comments. All comments previously 

submitted to TTB regarding Notice No. 

105 will be given full consideration, so 

there is no need to resubmit such 

comments. 

Submitting Comments 

You may submit comments on this 

notice by using one of the following 

three methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You 

may send comments via the online 

comment form linked to this notice in 

Docket No. TTB–2010–0003 on 

‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal 

e-rulemaking portal, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A link to the 

docket is available under Notice No. 105 

on the TTB Web site at http:// 

www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files 

may be attached to comments submitted 

via Regulations.gov. For information on 

how to use Regulations.gov, click on the 

site’s Help or FAQ tabs. 

• U.S. Mail: You may send comments 

via postal mail to the Director, 

Regulations and Rulings Division, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, 

DC 20044–4412. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: You may 

hand-carry your comments or have them 

hand-carried to the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Suite 200–E, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this notice. 

Your comments must reference this 

notice and Notice No. 105 and include 

your name and mailing address. Your 

comments also must be made in 

English, be legible, and be written in 

language acceptable for public 

disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge 

receipt of comments, and the Bureau 

considers all comments as originals. 

If you are commenting on behalf of an 

association, business, or other entity, 

your comment must include the entity’s 

name as well as your name and position 

title. If you comment via 

Regulations.gov, please include the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
78946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 242 / Friday, December 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

entity’s name in the ‘‘Organization’’ 

blank of the comment form. If you 

comment via postal mail, please submit 

your entity’s comment on letterhead. 

You may also write to the 

Administrator before the comment 

closing date to ask for a public hearing. 

The Administrator reserves the right to 

determine whether to hold a public 

hearing. 

Confidentiality 

All submitted comments and 

attachments are part of the public record 

and subject to disclosure. Do not 

enclose any material in your comments 

that you consider to be confidential or 

that is inappropriate for public 

disclosure. 

Public Disclosure 

On the Federal e-rulemaking portal, 

Regulations.gov, TTB will post, and the 

public may view, copies of all published 

notices and all comments received in 

response to those notices within Docket 

No. TTB–2010–0003. A direct link to 

that docket is available on the TTB Web 

site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 105. 

You may also reach Docket No. TTB– 

2010–0003 through the Regulations.gov 

search page at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

All posted comments will display the 

commenter’s name, organization (if 

any), city, and State, and, in the case of 

mailed comments, all address 

information, including e-mail addresses. 

TTB may omit voluminous attachments 

or material that the Bureau considers 

unsuitable for posting. 

You and other members of the public 

may view copies of all published 

notices, all related petitions, maps and 

other supporting materials, and all 

electronic or mailed comments TTB has 

received or will receive in response to 

this proposal by appointment at the TTB 

Information Resource Center, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 

You may also obtain copies at 20 cents 

per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact the TTB 

information specialist at the above 

address or by telephone at 202–453– 

2270 to schedule an appointment or to 

request copies of comments or other 

materials. 

Drafting Information 

Nancy Sutton and other members of 

the Regulations and Rulings Division 

drafted this notice. 

Signed: December 10, 2010. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31655 Filed 12–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DoD–2010–OS–0135] 

RIN 0790–AI67 

32 CFR Part 174 

Revitalizing Base Closure 

Communities and Addressing Impacts 

of Realignment 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, DoD. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Economic Development 

Conveyances were created in 

amendments to the Base Closure and 

Realignment law in 1993, creating a new 

tool for communities experiencing 

economic dislocation from the closing 

of a major employer in the community. 

Congress recognized that the existing 

authority under the Federal Property 

and Administrative Services Act of 1949 

(as amended and otherwise known as 

the Real Property Act) was not 

structured to deal with the unique 

challenges of assisting community 

economic recovery and job creation of 

such large installations, many with 

decaying or obsolete infrastructure and 

other redevelopment challenges. Section 

2715 of Public Law 111–84 changed the 

authority of the Department of Defense 

to convey property to a local 

redevelopment authority (LRA) for 

purposes of job generation on a military 

installation closed or realigned under a 

base closure law, known as an 

Economic Development Conveyance 

(EDC). Under this revised authority, the 

Department is no longer required to seek 

to obtain fair market value for an EDC: 

An EDC may be for consideration at or 

below the estimated fair market value, 

including for no consideration. The law 

also now explicitly provides authority 

for the Department to be flexible 

regarding the form of consideration, 

including the authority to accept 

consideration in the form of revenue 

sharing or so-called ‘‘back-end’’ funding. 

(i.e., ’’The Secretary may accept, as 

consideration, a share of the revenues 

that the redevelopment authority 

receives from third-party buyers or 

lessees from sales and long-term leases 

of the conveyed property, consideration 

in kind (including goods and services), 

real property and improvements, or 

such other consideration as the 

Secretary considers appropriate.’’) 

The revised language also provides 

that the Department’s determination of 

the consideration may account for the 

economic conditions of the local 

affected community and the estimated 

costs to redevelop the property. 

This proposed regulation provides 

guidance to implement recent changes 

to the law and makes other 

improvements that encourage expedited 

property transfers for job creation that 

allow for the Department to obtain a 

share of the revenues obtained. 

DATES: Written comments received at 

the address indicated below by February 

15, 2011 will be accepted. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

number and title, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, 

Room 3C843, Washington, DC 20301– 

1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Hertzfeld, (703) 604–6020. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rule implements these 

statutory changes and is also intended 

to enable the Military Departments to 

expedite the EDC process. Closed 

military bases represent a potential 

engine of economic activity and job 

creation for former host communities. 

When disposing of property using this 

method, the Military Departments 

should use the full breadth of the EDC 

authority to structure conveyances that 

respond to the job creation and 

redevelopment challenges of the 

individual community. 

The new law no longer requires the 

Department to seek Fair Market Value. 

Accordingly, a transfer may be made 

below estimated fair market value or 

without consideration if the LRA agrees 

to reinvest sale or lease proceeds for not 

less than seven years and to take title to 

the property within a reasonable 

timeframe. As such, this regulation 

deletes the requirement for the 

Department to obtain an appraisal of the 

property as part of an EDC conveyance, 

including analysis of highest and best 

use, for that purpose. This regulation 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS