14040 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. E9–6823 Filed 3–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2008–0001; T.D. TTB–74; 

Re: Notice No. 81] 

RIN 1513–AB45 

Establishment of the Haw River Valley 

Viticultural Area (2007R–179P) 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: This Treasury decision 

establishes the 868-square mile ‘‘Haw 

River Valley’’ viticultural area in 

Alamance, Caswell, Chatham, Guilford, 

Orange, and Rockingham Counties, 

North Carolina. We designate 

viticultural areas to allow vintners to 

better describe the origin of their wines 

and to allow consumers to better 

identify wines they may purchase. 

DATES: Effective Dates: April 29, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. 

Sutton, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER30MR09.133</GPH> ER30MR09.134</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 14041 

158, Petaluma, CA 94952; phone 415– 

271–1254. 

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 regulations 

promulgated under the FAA Act. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) allows the establishment of 

definitive viticultural areas and the use 

of their names as appellations of origin 

on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the 

list of approved viticultural areas. 

Definition 

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines 

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region 

distinguishable by geographical 

features, the boundaries of which have 

been recognized and defined in part 9 

of the regulations. These designations 

allow vintners and consumers to 

attribute a given quality, reputation, or 

other characteristic of a wine made from 

grapes grown in an area to its 

geographical origin. The establishment 

of viticultural areas allows vintners to 

describe more accurately the origin of 

their wines to consumers and helps 

consumers to identify wines they may 

purchase. Establishment of a viticultural 

area is neither an approval nor an 

endorsement by TTB of the wine 

produced in that area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations outlines the procedure for 

proposing an American viticultural area 

and provides that any interested party 

may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area. 

Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations 

requires the petition to include— 

• Evidence that the proposed 

viticultural area is locally and/or 

nationally known by the name specified 

in the petition; 

• Historical or current evidence that 

supports setting the boundary of the 

proposed viticultural area as the 

petition specifies; 

• Evidence relating to the 

geographical features, such as climate, 

soils, elevation, and physical features 

that distinguish the proposed 

viticultural area from surrounding areas; 

• A description of the specific 

boundary of the proposed viticultural 

area, based on features found on United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; 

and 

• A copy of the appropriate USGS 

map(s) with the proposed viticultural 

area’s boundary prominently marked. 

Haw River Valley Petition 

Patricia McRitchie of McRitchie 

Associates, LLC, submitted a petition to 

establish the 868-square mile Haw River 

Valley viticultural area in North 

Carolina on behalf of all the local grape 

growers and winemakers. 

The proposed Haw River Valley 

viticultural area is located in the 

Piedmont in north-central North 

Carolina. According to the USGS maps 

and the written boundary description 

submitted with the petition, the Haw 

River Valley region lies between the 

cities of Greensboro and Chapel Hill, 

and includes the southeastern-flowing 

Haw River and its accompanying 

watershed. The proposed Haw River 

Valley viticultural area lies to the east 

of the established Yadkin Valley 

viticultural area (27 CFR 9.174) and the 

established Swan Creek viticultural area 

(27 CFR 9.211). According to the 

petitioner, the proposed viticultural area 

encompasses approximately 868 square 

miles and includes 60 acres of vineyards 

and 6 wineries. The petitioner 

submitted a map indicating that the 14 

vineyards within the proposed 

viticultural area are geographically 

disbursed throughout the area. 

The petitioner explains that the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

Haw River Valley viticultural area 

include its geology, soils, elevation, and 

climate. Its inland location, between the 

Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian 

Mountains, and its complex geological 

history combine to create a unique 

viticultural region. The Haw River 

watershed, which comprises 98 percent 

of the proposed viticultural area, was 

used to determine the proposed 

boundary line. 

Name Evidence 

According to the petitioner, the 

‘‘Haw’’ name originated with the 

Sissipahaw Indians, Native Americans 

living in small villages along the Haw 

River. After the arrival of the first 

Europeans in the 16th century, the 

Sissipahaw Indians eventually 

abandoned their villages along the Haw 

River and joined other Native 

Americans in other parts of the North 

Carolina Piedmont. 

The petitioner states that the ‘‘Haw 

River’’ and ‘‘Haw River Valley’’ names 

both have been used in reference to the 

region that the viticultural area petition 

describes. In the early 1700’s John 

Lawson, an English naturalist and 

surveyor, wrote an account of his party 

crossing the ‘‘famous Hau-River’’ to get 

a safe distance from the Sissipahaw 

Indians. Also, in the ‘‘Shuttle & Plow: A 

History of Alamance County, North 

Carolina’’ (Alamance County Historical 

Association, 1999), Carole Troxler and 

William Vincent explain that the names 

‘‘Hawfields’’ and ‘‘Haw River 

Settlement’’ reference the earliest 

colonial settlements in the Haw River 

Valley. Further, in ‘‘Orange County, 

1752–1952’’ (The Journal of Southern 

History, May 1954), authors Hugh Lefler 

and Paul Wager reference the Haw River 

Valley. 

According to evidence presented in 

the petition, the Haw River Valley name 

continues to be used to describe the 

region. The Burlington/Alamance 

County Convention Center and Visitors 

Bureau Web site (http:// 

www.burlington-area-nc.org/events.asp) 

describes a September 9, 2006, 

Paddle[boat] dinner cruise that 

experiences the ‘‘richness of the Haw 

River Valley.’’ A flyer for the Haw River 

Festival for the Community describes a 

display of arrowheads and artifacts 

found in the Haw River Valley. The 

Haw River Valley Web site (http:// 

www.hawrivervalley.com/) describes the 

area as a large, fertile region 

encompassing parts of Rockingham, 

Caswell, Guilford, Alamance, and 

Chatham Counties in North Carolina. 

On November 23, 2006, the 

Greensboro News Record ran an article 

describing a strong storm depositing 

‘‘prodigious rain into the Haw River 

valley and effectively shutting down 

parts of the region.’’ 

Boundary Evidence 

According to the petitioner, the 

boundary of the proposed Haw River 

Valley viticultural area is based on 

nearly the entirety of the Haw River 

watershed’s distinctive underlying 

geology and soils. The Haw River is 

approximately 110 miles long, and the 

proposed viticultural area includes that 

portion of the Haw River between 

Williamsburg and Griffins Crossroad, a 

town located approximately 2.5 miles 

northwest of Everett Jordan Lake. The 

Haw River headwaters start northwest of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
14042 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Greensboro, and the river travels east 

and south-southeast, gaining 

momentum in the Piedmont region. The 

river eventually flows into the Everett 

Jordan Lake in Chatham County, joins 

the Deep River south of the Everett 

Jordan Lake dam, and then flows into 

the Cape Fear River. 

The urban, nonagricultural 

Greensboro region lies close to, but 

outside of, the proposed northwestern 

portion of the boundary. Also, differing 

geology, soils, and elevations 

distinguish the Haw River watershed 

from the Dan River watershed to the 

north, the Inner Coastal Province to the 

east, the Sandhills to the south, and the 

western Piedmont Province to the west. 

Distinguishing Features 

According to the petitioner, the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

Haw River Valley viticultural area 

include its geology, soils, elevation, and 

climate. The combination of the 

underlying geology of the Haw River 

Valley and its inland, nonmountainous 

geography influences the soils and the 

climate and creates a unique grapegrowing region. 

Geology 

The petitioner states that Matthew 

Mayberry, of the Mayberry Land 

Company in Elkin, North Carolina, 

provided the geological data and 

documentation for the Haw River Valley 

viticultural area petition. Citing ‘‘North 

Carolina: The Years Before Man,’’ by 

Fred Beyer (Carolina Academic Press, 

Durham, North Carolina, 1991), Mr. 

Mayberry provided an interpretation of 

the geology in the Haw River Valley, as 

follows. 

The Piedmont and Blue Ridge 

Provinces share a geologic history 

dating back to the formation of the 

continental landmasses. The mountain 

building of the region is attributed to 

plate tectonics, the spectrum of 

uplifting, and erosion. Long-term 

erosion has reduced the mountains to 

lower, more level terrains that gently 

slope toward the ocean. The Piedmont 

and Coastal Plain landforms are part of 

the erosional leveling process of the 

third global tectonic cycle. 

The rock units in the Haw River 

Valley region date back approximately 

700 million years. In contrast, the age of 

the rock units of the Yadkin Valley 

region, in the western part of the 

Piedmont Province, date back 

approximately 1.5 billion years. 

The Haw River Valley region, 

including its rock units, is the geological 

result of volcanic metamorphism and 

igneous activity stemming from island 

arcs. Island arcs form when a 

continental plate overrides an oceanic 

plate, resulting in subduction zones that 

create volcanoes. In the northeastern 

part of the proposed viticultural area a 

caldera formed in an area of formerly 

intense volcanic activity. The caldera 

collapsed into a 36- by 9-mile ellipseshaped area that igneous rock 

eventually filled. 

The proposed Haw River Valley 

viticultural area lies in the Carolina 

Slate Belt, a result of tectonic 

movements of the North American and 

African continental plates. The slate belt 

trends to the northwest and disappears 

under the Carolina Coastal Plain, which 

extends southeast and eventually dips 

under the Atlantic Ocean. 

Finally, according to Mr. Mayberry, 

the major rock types in the Haw River 

Valley include the following: Porpyritic 

Granite/Felsic Intrusive Complex, Felsic 

Gneiss, Mafic Volcanics, Felsic 

Volcanics, Intermediate Intrusive Rocks, 

Mica Gneiss, and Mica Schist 

(Muscovite and/or Biotite). The Haw 

River Valley igneous and metamorphic 

rocks, composed of magma, differ from 

those rocks formed from magma in the 

western Piedmont and Appalachian 

Mountains. 

Soils 

The petitioner states that James Lewis, 

soil scientist, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture, provided the 

soils information for the Haw River 

Valley viticultural area petition. In his 

research, Mr. Lewis consulted the 

published soil surveys of Alamance, 

Caswell, Chatham, Guilford, Orange, 

and Rockingham Counties, North 

Carolina, and available updates to 

existing soil surveys. 

According to Mr. Lewis, the soils of 

the proposed Haw River Valley 

viticultural area, compared to those of 

the surrounding regions, have unique 

and distinguishable characteristics. 

Most of the soils in the Haw River 

Valley are acidic and low in natural 

fertility. 

The proposed Haw River Valley 

viticultural area is entirely in the udic 

soil moisture regime. (The udic 

moisture regime is common to soils of 

humid climates with well-distributed 

rainfall or with enough rain in summer 

that the amount of stored moisture plus 

rainfall is approximately equal to, or 

exceeds, the amount of 

evapotranspiration. In most years, at 

some time during the year water moves 

down through the soil.) Further, the 

proposed viticultural area lies 

dominantly in the thermic soil 

temperature regime, averaging 59 to 72 

degrees F at a soil depth of 20 inches. 

The soils in the proposed viticultural 

area formed primarily in residuum, or 

saprolite, weathered from igneous, 

intermediate, and mafic intrusive rocks 

and in felsic and intermediate volcanic 

rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt. 

In the central portion of the proposed 

Haw River Valley viticultural area, the 

soils formed in residuum from mafic 

intrusive rocks. In these areas the soils 

have a clayey subsoil of mixed 

mineralogy and slightly better natural 

fertility than that of the soils to the east 

and south. The Mecklenburg soils are on 

nearly level and moderately steep 

uplands. These soils have moderately 

slow permeability. The Enon and Iredell 

soils are on uplands and some side 

slopes. These soils have a clayey 

subsoil, and they have a high or very 

high shrink-swell potential, 

respectively; because of these 

properties, they have poor internal 

drainage and perch water during wet 

periods. 

In the western and northeastern 

portions of the proposed viticultural 

area, the soils formed mainly in igneous 

and intermediate intrusive rocks. In 

these areas the Cecil, Appling, Vance, 

Helena, and Sedgefield soils are 

dominant. Typically, these soils are 

deep and have a clayey subsoil. Also 

scattered throughout these areas are the 

Enon and Iredell soils formed in mafic, 

intrusive rocks. 

In the northwesternmost portion of 

the proposed viticultural area, the soils 

formed in residuum derived from 

metamorphic rocks. In this area the 

Fairview, Clifford, Toast, and Rasalo 

soils on nearly level to steep uplands 

are dominant. Further, except for the 

Rasalo soils, these soils are very deep 

and well drained, and have a clayey 

subsoil, moderate permeability, and 

good internal structure. In the Rasalo 

soils, because of high shrinking and 

swelling in the clayey subsoil and slow 

permeability, the soils tend to perch 

water during wet periods. 

In the eastern and southern portions 

of the Haw River Valley and in parts of 

the southwestern and northwestern 

portions, the soils formed primarily in 

residuum derived from felsic and 

intermediate volcanic rocks. In these 

areas the Georgeville and Herndon soils 

are very deep and well drained, and 

have a loamy surface layer, a clayey 

subsoil, moderate permeability, and 

good internal structure. These soils are 

on gently sloping to moderately steep 

uplands. Also in these areas are the 

Callison, Secrest, and Kirksey soils. 

These soils are moderately well drained 

and have a loamy surface layer and 

subsoil. These soils are on level flats 

and gently sloping upland ridges, in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 14043 

depressions, and around heads of 

drains. They vary in depth depending 

on the underlying soft and hard 

bedrock; consequently, they have poor 

internal drainage and perch water 

during wet periods. 

The soils weathered from rocks 

within the proposed Haw River Valley 

viticultural area have significant 

differences compared to the soils in the 

surrounding areas to the east, west, and 

south. However, they are similar to the 

soils in the surrounding north portion 

and in the northwesternmost portion of 

the proposed viticultural area. 

East of the proposed Haw River Valley 

viticultural area, on the Inner Coastal 

Plain, the soils, predominantly Udults, 

have a thermic temperature regime, a 

udic moisture regime, a loamy or sandy 

surface layer, and a loamy or clayey 

subsoil. The soils are generally deep and 

well drained to poorly drained, and 

maintain adequate moisture during the 

viticultural growing season. 

West of the proposed Haw River 

Valley viticultural area, most soils 

formed in saprolite weathered from 

igneous intrusive rocks and some 

gneisses and schists of the Charlotte 

Belt. However, some soils formed in 

residuum derived from intrusions of 

mafic rocks and have a clay subsoil of 

mixed mineralogy. The Gaston and 

Mecklenburg soils have moderate or 

moderately slow permeability and are 

moderately suitable for viticulture. The 

Enon and Iredell soils are also west of 

the proposed viticultural area. 

According to ‘‘Scientists Study Why 

More Storms Form in the Sandhills in 

the Summer,’’ a news release dated July 

5, 2001, from North Carolina State 

University, the soils are deep and sandy 

in the Sandhills region south of the 

proposed Haw River Valley viticultural 

area. Unlike the clay soils in the 

Piedmont, these soils, like the sandy 

loam of the Inner Coastal Plain, do not 

have much clay. 

Elevation 

The elevations in the proposed Haw 

River Valley viticultural area range from 

350 feet at the southeastern boundary 

corner to over 800 feet at the 

northwestern boundary corner, 

according to elevation maps by John 

Boyer (Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University, 2001) that the 

North Carolina Grape Council provided. 

The four physiographic regions of North 

Carolina are the eastern Outer Coastal 

Plain, the Inner Coastal Plain, the 

central Piedmont Province, and the 

western Blue Ridge Province, as shown 

on the Physiography of North Carolina 

map by M.A. Medina et al. (North 

Carolina Geological Survey, Division of 

Land Resources, 2004). 

The Haw River Valley region lies in 

the Piedmont Province near the 

demarcation of the fall line with the 

Inner Coastal Plain, according to 

‘‘History and Environment of North 

Carolina’s Piedmont Evolution of a 

Value-Added Society,’’ by John Rogers 

(University of North Carolina, 

Department of Geology, 1999). Areas 

near the fall zone vary from 300 to 600 

feet in elevation, in contrast with the 

approximately 1,500-foot elevation at 

the foot of the Blue Ridge Mountains, as 

shown on the Boyer maps. 

The Piedmont Province consists of 

generally rolling, well rounded hills and 

ridges with a difference in elevation of 

a few hundred feet between the hills 

and valleys, according to the Boyer 

maps. The Inner Coastal Plain, which 

has stair-step planar terraces that dip 

gently toward the ocean, ranges from 25 

to 600 feet in elevation, the petitioner 

explains. 

Climate 

The climatic features that distinguish 

the proposed Haw River Valley 

viticultural area are precipitation, air 

temperature, and growing season, 

according to the petitioner. The Haw 

River Valley has more moderate 

temperatures and greater precipitation 

than those in the surrounding areas 

outside the proposed boundary line. 

The climate within the Haw River 

Valley, which is generally similar 

throughout, varies from the surrounding 

regions outside the proposed 

viticultural area, according to data 

obtained from the Southeast Regional 

Climate Center (SRCC) and from 

horticultural information leaflets by 

Katharine Perry (North Carolina State 

University, revised December 1998). 

The data from SRCC includes those 

from stations within and outside the 

boundary line of the proposed Haw 

River Valley viticultural area, according 

to the petitioner. The table below lists 

the SRCC weather stations consulted 

and the direction and distance of the 

location of each weather station in 

relation to the Haw River Valley. 

Weather station Compass direction from Haw River Valley Approximate distance from Haw River Valley 

Brookneal, Virginia ............................................ North ................................................................. 84 miles. 

Louisburg, North Carolina ................................. East .................................................................. 52 miles. 

Pinehurst, North Carolina .................................. South ................................................................ 70 miles. 

Mocksville, North Carolina ................................. West ................................................................. 50 miles. 

The air temperatures in the Haw River 

Valley region are generally warmer than 

those in the area to the north, cooler 

than those in the areas to the south and 

east, and similar to those in the area to 

the west on the Piedmont Province, the 

petitioner explains using SRCC data. 

The petitioner also provides, in the table 

below, the SRCC average annual high 

and low air temperatures, snow 

accumulation, and rainfall for the Haw 

River Valley and the areas outside the 

proposed boundary line. 

Relation to the proposed Haw River Valley viticultural area 

Average annual 

High air 

temperature 

Low air 

temperature 

Snow 

accumulation 

(in.) 

Rainfall 

(in.) 

Inside the boundary line ....................................................................................... 69.8 °F 46.6 °F 5.9 45.27 

To the north .......................................................................................................... 67 °F 42 °F 11.3 41.65 

To the east ........................................................................................................... 71.4 °F 46 °F 4.1 45.98 

To the south .......................................................................................................... 72.7 °F 49.2 °F 4.1 49.11 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
14044 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Relation to the proposed Haw River Valley viticultural area 

Average annual 

High air 

temperature 

Low air 

temperature 

Snow 

accumulation 

(in.) 

Rainfall 

(in.) 

To the west ........................................................................................................... 70 °F 45.1 °F 9.9 44.57 

According to the petitioner, the 

annual frost-free growing season of the 

proposed Haw River Valley viticultural 

area runs from April 1 to November 1 

and totals 214 days. The growing season 

is 2 to 4 weeks longer than that for the 

region to the west, and is similar to 

those for the regions to the immediate 

south and to the east of the proposed 

boundary line. The growing season 

length and frost-free dates fall within 

the parameters for successful viticulture 

of vinifera, hybrid, and Muscadine 

grapes, according to the ‘‘Analysis for 

Viticultural Suitability in North 

Carolina,’’ a map prepared by John 

Boyer (Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University, 2001). 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

TTB published Notice No. 81 

regarding the proposed Haw River 

Valley viticultural area in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 16800) on March 31, 

2008. In that notice, TTB invited 

comments by May 30, 2008, from all 

interested persons. We expressed 

particular interest in receiving 

comments on whether the proposed area 

name, Haw River Valley, as well as the 

Haw River name, would result in a 

conflict with currently used brand 

names. We also solicited comments on 

the sufficiency and accuracy of the 

name, boundary, climatic, and other 

required information submitted in 

support of the petition. We received 

four comments from individuals in 

response to that notice. All four 

comments supported the establishment 

of the Haw River Valley viticultural area 

as proposed. 

TTB Finding 

After careful review of the petition 

and the comments received, TTB finds 

that the evidence submitted supports 

the establishment of the proposed 

viticultural area. Therefore, under the 

authority of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act and part 4 of our 

regulations, we establish the ‘‘Haw 

River Valley’’ viticultural area in 

Alamance, Caswell, Chatham, Guilford, 

Orange, and Rockingham Counties, 

North Carolina, effective 30 days from 

the publication date of this document. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative boundary 

description of the viticultural area in the 

regulatory text published at the end of 

this document. 

Maps 

The maps for determining the 

boundary of the viticultural area 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 viticultural area 

and its inclusion in part 9 of the TTB 

regulations, its name, ‘‘Haw River 

Valley,’’ is recognized under 27 CFR 

4.39(i)(3) as a name of viticultural 

significance. The text of the new 

regulation clarifies this point. In 

addition, with the establishment of the 

Haw River Valley viticultural area, the 

name ‘‘Haw River’’ standing alone will 

be considered a term of viticultural 

significance. Consumers and vintners 

could reasonably attribute the quality, 

reputation, or other characteristic of 

wine made from grapes grown in the 

proposed Haw River Valley viticultural 

area to the name Haw River itself. A 

name also has viticultural significance 

when so determined by a TTB officer 

(see 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). Therefore, the 

proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth 

in this document specifies both ‘‘Haw 

River Valley’’ and ‘‘Haw River’’ as terms 

of viticultural significance for purposes 

of part 4 of the TTB regulations. 

Once this final rule becomes effective, 

wine bottlers using ‘‘Haw River Valley’’ 

or ‘‘Haw River’’ 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 

area’s full name, ‘‘Haw River Valley,’’ as 

an appellation of origin. 

For a wine to be labeled with a 

viticultural area name or with a brand 

name that includes a viticultural area 

name or other term identified as being 

viticulturally significant in part 9 of the 

TTB regulations, 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 for labeling with the viticultural 

area name or other viticulturally 

significant term and that name or term 

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 viticulturally significant term 

appears in another reference on the 

label in a misleading manner, the bottler 

would have to obtain approval of a new 

label. Accordingly, if a previously 

approved label uses the name ‘‘Haw 

River Valley’’ or ‘‘Haw River’’ for a wine 

that does not meet the 85 percent 

standard, the previously approved label 

will be subject to revocation upon the 

effective date of the establishment of the 

Haw River Valley viticultural area. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing a viticultural 

area name or other term of viticultural 

significance that was used as a brand 

name on a label approved before July 7, 

1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this regulation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This regulation imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of a viticultural 

area name is the result of a proprietor’s 

efforts and consumer acceptance of 

wines from that area. Therefore, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 

Drafting Information 

N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and 

Rulings Division drafted this notice. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 14045 

The Regulatory Amendment 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter 1, 

part 9, 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 subpart C by adding § 9.214 

to read as follows: 

§ 9.214 Haw River Valley. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Haw 

River Valley’’. For purposes of part 4 of 

this chapter, ‘‘Haw River Valley’’ and 

‘‘Haw River’’ are terms of viticultural 

significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The two United 

States Geological Survey 1:100,000-scale 

metric topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the Haw 

River Valley viticultural area are titled: 

(1) Greensboro, North Carolina, 1984; 

and 

(2) Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1984. 

(c) Boundary. The Haw River Valley 

viticultural area is located in all of 

Alamance County and portions of 

Caswell, Chatham, Guilford, Orange, 

and Rockingham Counties. The 

boundary of the Haw River Valley 

viticultural area is as described below: 

(1) Begin at a point on the Greensboro 

map at the intersection of the Caswell 

and Orange Counties boundary line 

with Lynch Creek, southeast of Corbett 

and the Corbett Ridge, and then proceed 

in a straight line southeast 2 miles to the 

intersection of North Carolina State 

Highway 49 and an unnamed, light-duty 

road, known locally as McCulloch Road, 

located approximately 1 mile northeast 

of Carr, in west Orange County; then 

(2) Proceed in a straight line southsouthwest 11.9 miles, crossing over U.S. 

Interstate 85, to Buckhorn at Turkey Hill 

Creek in west Orange County; then 

(3) Proceed in a straight line southeast 

5.2 miles, crossing onto the Chapel Hill 

map, to its intersection with Dodsons 

Crossroad and an unnamed, light-duty 

road that runs generally north-northeastsouth-southwest in west Orange County; 

then 

(4) Proceed south-southwest on the 

unnamed, light-duty road 3.4 miles to 

its intersection with North Carolina 

State Highway 54, also known as Star 

Route 54, east of White Cross in west 

Orange County; then 

(5) Proceed southeast in a straight line 

14.1 miles, crossing over Terrells 

Mountain, Wilkinson Creek and several 

of its eastern tributaries, and U.S. Route 

15–501, until the line intersects with an 

unnamed road, known locally as Gilead 

Church Road, and U.S. Route 64 at 

Griffins Crossroads in Chatham County; 

then 

(6) Proceed generally west along U.S. 

Route 64 approximately 20.7 miles to its 

intersection with U.S. Route 421 in Siler 

City, Chatham County; then 

(7) Proceed generally northwest on 

U.S. Route 421 approximately 5.6 miles 

to its intersection with the Randolph 

County line, southeast of Staley; then 

(8) Proceed straight north along the 

Randolph County line 7.4 miles to its 

intersection with the Guilford County 

line; then 

(9) Proceed straight west along the 

Randolph County line 5.8 miles to its 

intersection with U.S. Route 421; then 

(10) Proceed in a straight line northnorthwest 20.5 miles, crossing onto the 

Greensboro map, to its intersection with 

U.S. Route 29 and North Carolina State 

Highway 150, between Browns Summit 

and Monticello in Guilford County; then 

(11) Proceed generally east and north 

on North Carolina State Highway 150 

approximately 4.3 miles to its 

intersection with North Carolina State 

Highway 87, east-northeast of 

Williamsburg in southeast Rockingham 

County; then 

(12) Proceed in a straight line eastnortheast 8.3 miles, crossing over the 

Caswell County line to a point at the 

intersection of the 236-meter elevation 

line, as marked on the map, and an 

unnamed road, known locally as Cherry 

Grove Road; then 

(13) Proceed east and southeast along 

the unnamed road, known locally as 

Cherry Grove Road, 5 miles to its 

intersection with North Carolina State 

Highway 62 at Jericho in Caswell 

County; then 

(14) Proceed generally southeast on 

North Carolina State Highway 62 

approximately 1.8 miles to its 

intersection with an unnamed road, 

known locally as Bayne’s Road at 

Anderson in Caswell County; then 

(15) Proceed generally east on the 

unnamed road known locally as Baynes 

Road 2 miles to its intersection with 

North Carolina State Highway 119 at 

Baynes in Caswell County; then 

(16) Proceed generally southsoutheast along North Carolina State 

Highway 119 approximately 1.7 miles to 

its intersection with the Caswell County 

line; then 

(17) Proceed straight east along the 

Caswell County line 4.3 miles to the 

beginning point. 

Signed: January 23, 2009. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: February 17, 2009. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. E9–7035 Filed 3–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Labor-Management 

Standards 

29 CFR Part 470 

RIN 1215–AB71 

Obligation of Federal Contractors and 

Subcontractors; Notice of Employee 

Rights Concerning Payment of Union 

Dues or Fees 

AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management 

Standards, Employment Standards 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule; rescission of 

regulations. 

SUMMARY: This final rule rescinds the 

regulations found at 29 CFR part 470, 

which implemented Executive Order 

13201. Executive Order 13496, signed 

by President Obama on January 30, 2009 

and published in the Federal Register 

on February 4, 2009, revoked Executive 

Order 13201, thus removing the 

authority under which such regulations 

were promulgated. Accordingly, the 

Secretary of Labor (the ‘‘Secretary’’) is 

issuing this final rule to rescind the 

regulations that implement and enforce 

the now-revoked Executive Order 

13201. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Denise M. Boucher, Director, Office of 

Policy Reports and Disclosure, Office of 

Labor-Management Standards, 

Employment Standards Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Suite N– 

5609, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693– 

1185. This number is not toll-free. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 30, 2009, President Obama 

signed Executive Order 13496, which 

revokes Executive Order 13201 and 

instructs executive departments and 

agencies to revoke any orders, rules, 

regulations, or policies implementing or 

enforcing Executive Order 13201. 

Executive Order 13496, Section 13, 74 

FR 6107 (February 4, 2009). Pursuant to 

the now-revoked Executive Order 

13201, the Secretary promulgated 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES