29686 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

compliance guide should be sent to 

Antoinette Carter at the previously 

mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

A 60-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. All written comments 

timely received will be considered 

before a final determination is made on 

this matter. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930 

Marketing agreements, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tart 

cherries. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN 

IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW 

YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, 

UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND 

WISCONSIN 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 930 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 930.200 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 930.200 Assessment rate. 

On and after October 1, 2010, the 

assessment rate imposed on handlers 

shall be $0.0075 per pound of tart 

cherries grown in the production area 

and utilized in the production of tart 

cherry products. Included in this rate is 

$0.005 per pound of cherries to cover 

the cost of the research and promotion 

program and $0.0025 per pound of 

cherries to cover administrative 

expenses. 

Dated: May 19, 2010. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12466 Filed 5–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Notice No. 105; Docket No. TTB–2010– 

0003] 

RIN 1513–AB41 

Proposed Establishment of the Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas Viticultural Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau proposes to establish 

the 4,600-acre ‘‘Pine MountainMayacmas’’ American viticultural area 

in portions of Mendocino and Sonoma 

Counties, California. 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. We 

invite comments on this proposed 

addition to our regulations. 

DATES: We must receive written 

comments on or before July 26, 2010. 

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 this notice, 

selected supporting materials, and any 

comments we receive 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/wine-rulemaking.shtml under 

Notice No. 105. You also may view 

copies of this notice, 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: N.A. 

Sutton, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 

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 

requires that these regulations, 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 

geographic 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 geographic 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29687 

States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; 

and 

• A copy of the appropriate USGS 

map(s) with the proposed viticultural 

area’s boundary prominently marked. 

Pine Mountain-Mayacmas Petition 

Sara Schorske of Compliance Service 

of America prepared and submitted a 

petition on her own behalf and that of 

local wine industry members to 

establish the 4,600-acre Pine MountainMayacmas American viticultural area in 

northern California. Located 

approximately 90 miles north of San 

Francisco and 5 miles north-northeast of 

Cloverdale, the proposed viticultural 

area surrounds much of Pine Mountain, 

which rises to the east of U.S. 101 and 

the Russian River, to the north of the 

river’s Big Sulphur Creek tributary, and 

to the immediate west of the Mayacmas 

Mountains. 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. 

According to the petition and the 

written boundary description, 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). The 

proposed area currently has 230 acres of 

commercial vineyards, the petition 

states, with another 150 acres under 

development. 

The petition states that the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

Pine Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural 

area include its mountainous soils, 

steep topography with high elevations, 

and a growing season climate that 

contrasts with the climate of the 

Alexander Valley floor below. Also, the 

petition notes that Pine MountainMayacmas vineyards generally are 

small, 5- to 20-acre plots located on flat 

or gently sloping patches of ground 

found within the proposed area’s steep 

mountainous terrain, which contrast 

with the larger vineyards found on the 

valley floor. 

We summarize below the supporting 

evidence presented in the petition. 

Name Evidence 

According to the petition, the ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas’’ name combines 

the names of the major geographical 

features found within the proposed 

viticultural area and serves to locate the 

proposed area within northern 

California. As shown on the provided 

USGS maps, the proposed viticultural 

area surrounds Pine Mountain, a 3,000- 

foot peak located on the western flank 

of the Mayacmas Mountains in northern 

Sonoma and southern Mendocino 

Counties. 

The northern portion of the 1998 

USGS Asti, California, quadrangle map 

shows Pine Mountain rising to 3,000 

feet in southern Mendocino County, 

near the Sonoma County line. Also, as 

shown on the Asti map, Pine Mountain 

Road climbs from the Cloverdale area 

and marks a portion of the proposed 

viticultural area’s southern boundary. 

The October 2000 edition of the 

California State Automobile 

Association’s Mendocino and Sonoma 

Coast road map shows the Mayacamas 

Mountains spanning north-northwest 

from approximately Mount St. Helena, 

and continuing through the Pine 

Mountain region to Lake Mendocino. A 

1956 regional map produced by the 

State of California Division of Forestry, 

as provided in the petition, shows Pine 

Mountain northeast of Cloverdale. 

The 1982 publication, ‘‘Cloverdale 

Then & Now—Being a History of 

Cloverdale, California, Its Environs, and 

Families,’’ refers to the Pine Mountain 

junction and the Pine Mountain toll 

road in discussing the early roads of the 

region (page 3). This publication also 

includes a 1942 picture of homesteaders 

Hubert and George Smith on Pine 

Mountain (page 6). A 1985 article in the 

Redwood Rancher, ‘‘The Early Wineries 

of the Cloverdale Area,’’ by William 

Cordtz, discusses the grape growing of 

Mrs. Emily Preston in the late 1800s. 

The article states that the Preston 

Winery ‘‘was on Pine Mountain 

immediately north of the present U.S. 

101 bridge north of Cloverdale.’’ 

The petition also notes that the Pine 

Mountain Mineral Water Company 

bottled water from springs located on 

Pine Mountain for more than 50 years, 

until the mid-1900s. A copy of one of 

the company’s bottle labels included in 

the petition prominently displays the 

‘‘Pine Mountain’’ name with a tall 

mountain in the background and springs 

in the foreground. 

As noted in the petition and as shown 

on USGS maps, the Mayacmas 

Mountain range covers portions of 

Mendocino, Sonoma, Napa, and Lake 

Counties. The Mayacmas Mountain 

range divides Lake County from 

Mendocino, Sonoma, and Napa 

Counties, and, the petition states, the 

range defines the northern side of the 

Alexander Valley. According to the 

petition, the mountains were named for 

the Mayacmas Indians. While the name 

is sometimes spelled ‘‘Mayacamas’’ or 

‘‘Maacama,’’ ‘‘Mayacmas’’ is the official 

spelling used on USGS maps. 

Noting that the name ‘‘Pine Mountain’’ 

is commonly used throughout the 

United States, the petition states that the 

use of ‘‘Mayacmas’’ in the proposed 

viticultural area’s name acts as a 

geographic modifier that pinpoints the 

proposed viticultural area’s northern 

California location. The petitioners 

believe that ‘‘California’’ is not an 

appropriate geographical modifier for 

the viticultural area’s name since there 

are other Pine Mountains in California. 

The USGS Geographical Names 

Information System (GNIS), for 

example, lists 21 additional ‘‘Pine 

Mountains’’ in California. 

The petition also notes that the 

Mayacmas Mountains ‘‘are closely 

associated with winegrowing’’ since the 

range is home to many vineyards and 

wineries. The Mayacmas range, the 

petition states, divides the grape 

growing regions of Ukiah and Clear 

Lake, and borders the Alexander Valley 

(27 CFR 9.53), Napa Valley (27 CFR 

9.23), and Sonoma Valley (27 CFR 9.29) 

viticultural areas. The petitioners 

believe that ‘‘Mayacmas is an ideal 

modifier’’ to distinguish the proposed 

viticultural area ‘‘from other places with 

similar names’’ and will ‘‘help 

consumers easily ascertain its general 

location.’’ 

Boundary Evidence 

According to the petition, the 

proposed 4,600-acre Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area 

encompasses those portions of Pine 

Mountain and its lower slopes that are 

suitable for viticulture. The petition 

states that the boundary was drawn in 

consideration of the mountain’s varying 

steepness, water availability, and solar 

orientation. 

The petition notes that within the 

proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticultural area vineyard development 

is limited to the small, 5- to 20-acre 

plots of flatter ground found within the 

proposed area’s steep terrain. Limiting 

factors for these mountain vineyard 

operations, the petition explains, 

include the needs for tractor use and 

economical erosion control. The 

mountain vineyards’ patchwork 

arrangement, the petition continues, 

contrasts to the large vineyards, some of 

100 acres or more, found on the floor of 

the nearby Alexander Valley. 

The petition states that the south and 

southwest sides of Pine Mountain, 

included within the proposed area’s 

boundary, have favorable growing 

season solar orientation as compared 

with the less sunny sides of the 

mountain outside of the proposed 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

29688 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

boundary line. Successful viticulture 

depends partially on a favorable solar 

orientation to provide adequate growing 

season sunshine and heat accumulation. 

The petition summarizes the rationale 

for the proposed Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area boundary as 

shown in the table below: 

Sides of Pine Mountain in relationship to the proposed viticultural area Viticultural considerations 

North: Outside boundary line ................................................................... Inadequate sun and heat. 

East: Outside boundary line ..................................................................... Inadequate sun and heat. 

South and southwest at higher elevations: Inside boundary line ............ Some gentle slopes, good sun exposure and heat accumulation, and 

available water. 

South at lower elevations below Pine Mountain Road: Outside boundary line.Steep terrain and lack of water. 

West at higher elevations: Inside boundary line ...................................... Some gentle slopes, good sun exposure and heat accumulation, and 

available water. 

West at lower elevations: Outside boundary line ..................................... Steep terrain. 

The history of grape-growing and 

winemaking in the Pine Mountain 

region goes back to the 19th century, 

according to the petition. The 1877 

‘‘Thompson Historical Atlas Map of 

Sonoma County’’ lists several grape 

growers with vineyards on or near Pine 

Mountain. These included, the petition 

states, George Allen’s 2-acre vineyard on 

the slopes of Pine Mountain, J.G. Rains’ 

10-acre vineyard, Clay Worth’s 6-acre 

vineyard at the base of Pine Mountain, 

and Wellington Appleton, who owned 

144 acres on the mountain’s western 

slopes. 

About 1910, the petition states, Steve 

Ratto developed a vineyard and winery 

at the 1,700-foot elevation of Pine 

Mountain, and the site is located inside 

the southwest boundary line of the 

proposed viticultural area. The winery 

site is shown on a 1956 State of 

California Division of Forestry map for 

the region included with the petition. 

The petition notes that remnants of the 

old winery building are still visible and 

that modern vineyards grow on the site 

as well. 

The petition also describes the large 

vineyard and winery operation of 

Hartwell and Emily Preston. The 

Preston Ranch, dating back to 1869, 

came to include over 1,500 acres of 

land, a 10-acre vineyard, an oak 

cooperage, and a large winery and wine 

cellar. An October 29, 1874, article in 

the Russian River Flag newspaper 

lauded Preston’s ‘‘Fruit and Wine 

Ranch,’’ and noted that it stretched from 

the eastern bank of the Russian River to 

the slopes of Pine Mountain. Reports 

from the time state that Preston 

harvested 40 tons of grapes from his 

vineyards in 1889. Much of the Preston 

winery’s output was used in the various 

patent medicines prescribed by Emily 

Preston, a well-known faith healer of the 

time. According to the USGS Cloverdale 

Quadrangle map and a map included in 

the petition, the former Preston 

vineyard lies about a mile outside of the 

western boundary line of the proposed 

Pine Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural 

area. 

Distinguishing Features 

Differences in topography, climate, 

and soils distinguish the proposed Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area 

from the surrounding areas, according to 

the petition. 

Topography 

The proposed Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area is higher in 

elevation, with steeper terrain, than the 

lower, flatter Alexander Valley to the 

proposed viticultural area’s southwest. 

Elevations within the proposed 

viticultural area begin at 1,600 feet and 

rise to the 3,000-foot summit of Pine 

Mountain. The terrain within the 

proposed viticultural area is generally 

steep and mountainous. Patches of 

flatter ground within this steep terrain 

allow for the development of areas of 

small, 5- to 20-acre vineyards. 

In contrast, to the west and south, the 

Alexander Valley floor rises from about 

260 feet in elevation at the Russian 

River and continues easterly and 

upward to the foothills of Pine 

Mountain and the Mayacmas 

Mountains. This flatter, lower terrain 

allows for the development of larger 

vineyards, some 100 acres or more, with 

different viticultural characteristics than 

found in the small mountain vineyards. 

Areas to the north and east of the 

proposed viticultural area, while similar 

in elevation and steepness, lack the 

flatter patches of ground and water 

resources needed for vineyard 

development. 

Climate 

The distinctive growing season 

climatic factors of the proposed Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area 

include limited marine fog cover, 

abundant sunshine, mild diurnal 

temperature changes, significant wind, 

and heavy winter rainfall, according to 

the petition. Quoting local growers, the 

petition states that the cooler spring 

climate of Pine Mountain delays the 

start of vine growth by about 2 weeks, 

as compared to valley vineyards. The 

sunnier summer growing conditions of 

the proposed viticultural area ensure 

that grape harvest starts at the same time 

as on the foggier valley floor. The 

petition also notes that the proposed 

area’s growing season climate is cooler 

during the day, warmer at night, 

windier, and wetter than the 

surrounding, lower elevation grape 

growing areas. 

In support of these conclusions, the 

petitioners gathered climatic data from 

six regional weather stations within and 

surrounding the proposed viticultural 

area. These were: Cloverdale (southwest 

of Pine Mountain at 333 feet), Hopland 

East (north-northwest of Pine Mountain 

at 1,160 feet), Hopland West (northwest 

of Pine Mountain at 1,200 feet), Sanel 

Valley (north-northwest of Pine 

Mountain at 525 feet), Alexander Valley 

(at the Seghesio Vineyards valley 

weather station, south-southwest of Pine 

Mountain at 350 feet), and Pine 

Mountain (at the Seghesio Vineyards 

mountain weather station, within the 

proposed viticultural area’s boundary 

line at 2,600 feet in elevation). 

Fog: Despite the later start of the grape 

growing season at the higher elevations 

of the proposed viticultural area, the 

differing elevation-based fog patterns 

found on Pine Mountain allow grape 

growth within the proposed viticultural 

area to catch up with the earlier start of 

the valley vineyards, according to local 

growers. The petition states that the 

heavy fog that frequently blankets the 

surrounding valley floors fails to rise to 

the 1,600-foot minimum elevation of the 

proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticultural area boundary line. The 

petition describes the mountain as a 

sunny island floating above the fog, and 

the petition included pictorial 

documentation of this phenomenon. 

The petition states that the proposed 

Pine Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural 

area averages 3 to 4 hours more sunlight 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29689 

a day than the Alexander Valley during 

the growing season. While the valley 

remains blanketed under a heavy fog 

layer until late morning and then again 

later in the afternoon, the higher Pine 

Mountain elevations routinely bask in 

sunshine all day without fog. The extra 

sunlight and resulting longer daily 

period of warmth found on the higher 

slopes of Pine Mountain allow grapes to 

develop quickly and mature at the same 

time as those grown in valley floor 

vineyards. 

Temperatures: During the growing 

season, daytime high temperatures 

within the proposed Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area are 

consistently cooler, and overnight 

temperatures are consistently warmer, 

than those found on the Alexander 

Valley floor, according to the petition 

data. The petition includes temperature 

data gathered by local grape grower John 

Copeland, who gathered hourly 

temperature readings at several sites 

within the proposed viticultural area 

prior to planting his vineyards there. 

The petitioners combined Mr. 

Copeland’s data and that of the valley 

weather stations noted above in order to 

document the diurnal temperature 

differences between the proposed area 

and the lower valley floor. The average 

temperature differences between the 

higher elevations on Pine Mountain and 

the lower elevations on the Alexander 

Valley floor are shown in the table 

below: 

Region and 

elevation 

High temperature 

(° F) 

Low temperature 

(° F) 

Diurnal temperature variation (in 

° F) 

Pine Mountain (2,200 feet) ........................................................................................ 74 60 14 

Valley Floor (225 feet) ............................................................................................... 84 49 35 

The petition states that nights are 

warmer on the slopes of Pine Mountain 

mainly because cool night mountain air, 

being heavier than warm air, drains off 

the mountain into the valley below. 

This downward nocturnal air flow 

leaves the slopes of Pine Mountain 

slopes relatively warmer as compared to 

the cooler valley air temperatures. In 

addition, the petition explains that the 

marine inversion, a summer coastal 

phenomenon, results from a layer of 

cool, heavy, and moist marine air and 

fog that slips beneath the layer of 

warmer air. This cool, foggy air blankets 

the Alexander Valley floor and does not 

mix with the lighter, warm air above it 

on the mountain slopes. This 

phenomenon, the petition continues, 

inverts the normal mountainous air 

temperature pattern of cooler 

temperatures above and warmer 

temperatures below. 

Wind: The proposed Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area climate 

includes stronger and more frequent 

winds than those found in the valley 

below, the petition explains. The 

petition states that local growers report 

that Pine Mountain vineyards are 

naturally free of mildew, a vineyard 

malady commonly found in areas with 

more stagnant air. 

Precipitation: The petition notes that 

the proposed viticultural area receives 

30 to 60 percent more rainfall than the 

valley below. Southern storms often 

stall over Pine Mountain and the 

Mayacmas range, dropping more rain 

than in other areas. Pine Mountain also 

receives some upper elevation-based 

snow, something unheard of on the 

Alexander Valley floor below, the 

petition explains. 

Soils 

According to the petition, the 

mountain soils within the proposed 

Pine Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural 

area are significantly different from the 

alluvial valley soils found at lower 

elevations outside the proposed area. 

The petition documents these 

differences using United States 

Department of Agriculture online soil 

maps for Mendocino and Sonoma 

Counties. 

However, as the petition notes, the 

two county soil maps use different soils 

names since the two counties’ soil 

surveys were conducted years apart 

using different name protocols. 

Specifically, the Sonoma County Soil 

Survey shows that the portion of the 

proposed viticultural area within that 

county falls within the Los GatosHennecke-Maymen association, with the 

Los Gatos soils series the predominant 

soil type. The Mendocino County Soil 

Survey, however, shows that the portion 

of the proposed viticultural area within 

that county falls within the MaymenEstel-Snook association. 

To show that the soils within the 

proposed viticultural area are generally 

the same in each county, the petition 

also provides descriptions of the 

physical characteristics of the proposed 

viticultural area’s soils. The petition 

describes the parent materials of the 

proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticultural area’s soils as fractured 

shale and weathered sandstone. The 

petition notes that soils within the 

proposed viticultural area are 

mountainous types, which are generally 

steep, shallow to moderately deep, and 

very well to excessively well-drained. 

Also, these mountain soils include large 

amounts of sand and gravel. Pine 

Mountain soils are generally less than 3 

feet in depth, the petition continues, 

with more than half at depths of 12 

inches or less. In contrast, soils found 

on the Alexander Valley floor and in 

other lower elevation areas outside of 

the proposed viticultural area are 

deeper, less well-drained alluvial soils. 

Overlap With Established Viticultural 

Areas 

The Sonoma County portion of the 

proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticultural area lies almost entirely 

within the northern portion of the 

established Alexander Valley 

viticultural area, which, in turn, lies 

within the northern portion of the 

established Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area. The Alexander Valley 

and Northern Sonoma viticultural areas 

both lie totally within the North Coast 

viticultural area. While located in whole 

or in part within these existing 

viticultural areas, the petitioners believe 

that the proposed Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area is 

distinguishable from those existing 

areas. 

For example, the petition states that 

the 76,034-acre Alexander Valley 

viticultural area largely consists of 

lower elevation valley floor along the 

Russian River, with vineyards located 

below 600 feet, while the proposed Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area 

largely consists of mountainous terrain 

located above 1,600 feet. Further, as 

noted above, the petition includes 

climatic data documenting the differing 

valley and mountain growing season 

temperatures, wind, and fog patterns 

found in this region. 

In addition, the petition notes that the 

349,833-acre Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area extends 40 miles south 

from the Mendocino-Sonoma County 

line to the southernmost reaches of the 

Russian River Valley viticultural area 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

29690 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(27 CFR 9.66) southwest of Sebastopol. 

The large Northern Sonoma viticultural 

area includes the Alexander Valley (27 

CFR 9.53), Knights Valley (27 CFR 9.76), 

Chalk Hill (27 CFR 9.52), Russian River 

Valley (27 CFR 9.66), Green Valley of 

Russian River Valley (27 CFR 9.57), and 

Dry Creek Valley (27 CFR 9.64) 

viticultural areas with their differing 

microclimates and terrains. According 

to the petition, the diversity of the 

Northern Sonoma viticultural area 

stands in contrast to the uniform climate 

and terrain found within the proposed 

Pine Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural 

area. 

The established North Coast 

viticultural area lies north and 

northwest of San Francisco, and 

includes all of Sonoma County and 

portions of Mendocino, Napa, Lake, 

Solano, and Marin Counties. This very 

large viticultural area’s distinguishing 

features include its distinctive coastal 

climate and topography. While the 

proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticultural area has a somewhat similar 

climate, the petition notes, the proposed 

area is small, is limited to higher 

elevations, and is less foggy than the 

general North Coast area’s climate. 

TTB Determination 

TTB concludes that the petition to 

establish the 4,600-acre Pine MountainMayacmas American viticultural area 

merits consideration and public 

comment, as invited in this notice. 

Relationship to Existing Viticultural 

Areas 

Alexander Valley Viticultural Area 

The original Treasury Decision, T.D. 

ATF–187, establishing the more than 

60,000-acre Alexander Valley AVA, was 

published in the Federal Register (49 

FR 42719) on October 24, 1984. In the 

discussion of geographical features, T.D. 

ATF–187 relied on the geographical 

features of the valley floor and 

specifically excluded the mountainous 

area to the east, primarily because these 

areas were determined to have 

geographical features different from 

those in the established viticultural 

area. T.D. ATF–187 stated that the 

mountainous area has an average 

rainfall of 30 to 70 inches, temperatures 

of 54 to 58 degrees Fahrenheit, and a 

frost-free season of 230 to 270 days but 

that the valley floor has an average 

rainfall of 25 to 50 inches, temperatures 

of 54 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and a 

frost-free season of 240 to 260 days. 

Regarding soils, T.D. ATF–187 stated 

that the mountain area to the east is 

characterized primarily by the 

Goulding-Toomes-Guenoc and 

Henneke-Maymen associations, but the 

valley floor, by the Yolo-CortinaPleasanton association. TTB notes that 

the temperature and frost-free season 

data concerning the valley and the 

mountainous area, though different, are 

not so different as to be considered 

significantly different. 

The area in the Alexander Valley 

viticultural area that also overlaps the 

proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticulture area was added in Treasury 

Decision ATF–233, published in the 

Federal Register (51 FR 30353) on 

August 26, 1986. In discussing the 

proposal to add approximately 1,536 

acres to the existing Alexander Valley 

viticultural area ‘‘at elevations between 

1,600 feet and 2,400 feet above sea level 

on Pine Mountain,’’ T.D. ATF–233 

recognized that ‘‘the land in the area 

shares similar geological history, 

topographical features, soils, and 

climatic conditions as adjoining land 

within the previously established 

boundary of the [Alexander Valley] 

viticultural area.’’ 

However, the petitioner provides 

more detailed evidence regarding the 

geographical features that distinguish 

the entire proposed Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area (including 

the overlap area) from the greater 

portion of the Alexander Valley 

viticultural area. That evidence details 

the significant differences between the 

areas in comparable night and day 

temperatures, rainfall, and soils. The 

petitioner also included evidence that 

the proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticultural area climate includes 

stronger and more frequent winds than 

those found in the valley below. 

Northern Sonoma Viticultural Area 

The Alexander Valley viticultural area 

is within the Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area, and the area of overlap 

is the same with respect to both the 

Northern Sonoma and Alexander Valley 

viticultural areas. In addition, the name 

recognition for the Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area does not extend into 

the portion of the proposed Pine 

Mountain Mayacmas viticultural area 

beyond the boundary line for the 

Alexander Valley viticultural area. 

Historically, the outer boundaries of 

four viticultural areas [Alexander 

Valley, Dry Creek Valley, Russian River 

Valley, and Knights Valley] have been 

used in defining the boundary of the 

Northern Sonoma viticultural area. 

T.D. ATF–204, which established the 

Northern Sonoma viticultural area, 

states: 

Six approved viticultural areas are located 

entirely within the Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area as follows: Chalk Hill, 

Alexander Valley, Sonoma County Green 

Valley, Dry Creek Valley, Russian River 

Valley, and Knights Valley. 

The Sonoma County Green Valley and 

Chalk Hill areas are each entirely within the 

Russian River Valley area. The boundaries of 

the Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley, 

Russian River Valley, and Knights Valley 

areas all fit perfectly together dividing 

northern Sonoma County into four large 

areas. The Northern Sonoma area uses all of 

the outer boundaries of those four areas with 

the exception of an area southwest of the Dry 

Creek Valley area and west of the Russian 

River Valley area. 

Note: Sonoma County Green Valley was 

subsequently renamed Green Valley of 

Russian River Valley. 

TTB also notes that the Northern 

Sonoma viticultural area has been 

adjusted twice in order to maintain its 

boundary as being formed by the outer 

boundaries of the four areas specified in 

T.D. ATF–204 (See T.D. ATF–233 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 26, 1986 (51 FR 30352) and T.D. 

ATF–300 published in the Federal 

Register on August 9, 1990 (55 FR 

32400)). 

North Coast Viticultural Area 

In addition to what was previously 

discussed in this document concerning 

the North Coast viticultural area, TTB 

notes that this viticultural area, 

established by T.D. ATF–145, 48 FR 

42973 (September 21, 1983), 

encompasses approximately 40 

established viticultural areas, as well as 

the proposed Pine Mountain-Mayacmas 

viticultural area, in northern California. 

In the ‘‘Geographical Features’’ section, 

T.D. ATF–145 states that climate is the 

major factor in distinguishing the North 

Coast viticultural area from surrounding 

areas, and that all the areas within the 

North Coast viticultural area receive 

marine air and most receive fog. T.D. 

ATF–145 also states that ‘‘[due] to the 

enormous size of the North Coast, 

variations exist in climatic features such 

as temperatures, rainfall and fog 

intrusion.’’ 

The proposed Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area shares the 

basic geographical feature of North 

Coast, marine air that results in greater 

amounts of rain in the proposed 

viticultural area. However, the proposed 

viticultural area is much more uniform 

in its geographical features than the 

North Coast viticultural area. In this 

regard, T.D. ATF–145 specifically states, 

‘‘approval of this viticultural area does 

not preclude approval of additional 

areas, either wholly contained with the 

North Coast, or partially overlapping the 

North Coast * * * the smaller 

viticultural areas tend to be more 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29691 

uniform in their geographical and 

climatic characteristics * * *.’’ 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative boundary 

description of the petitioned-for 

viticultural area in the proposed 

regulatory text published at the end of 

this notice. 

Maps 

The petition included the required 

maps, and we list them below in the 

proposed 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. If we 

establish this proposed viticultural area, 

its name, ‘‘Pine Mountain-Mayacmas,’’ 

will be recognized as a name of 

viticultural significance under 27 CFR 

4.39(i)(3). The text of the proposed 

regulation clarifies this point. 

If this proposed regulatory text is 

adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers 

using ‘‘Pine Mountain-Mayacmas’’ 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 

full name of the viticultural area as an 

appellation of origin. Additionally, TTB 

wishes to clarify that if this viticultural 

area is established as the ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas’’ viticultural area, 

this establishment would preclude the 

use of an alternate spelling, such as 

‘‘Pine Mountain-Mayacamas,’’ as the 

name of the viticultural area on a wine 

label. It would also preclude the use of 

an alternate spelling, such as ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Mayacamas,’’ in a brand 

name, including a trademark, or in 

another label reference as to the origin 

of the wine unless the product were 

eligible to use the established name of 

the viticultural area 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 specified as having 

viticultural significance, 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 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. 

Accordingly, if a previously approved 

label uses the name ‘‘Pine MountainMayacmas’’ 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 approval of the Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing a viticultural 

area name or other viticulturally 

significant term that was used as a 

brand name on a label approved before 

July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for 

details. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

We invite comments from interested 

members of the public on whether we 

should establish the proposed Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area. 

We are interested in receiving 

comments on the sufficiency and 

accuracy of the name, boundary, 

climate, soils, and other required 

information submitted in support of the 

petition. 

In addition, given the proposed Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area’s 

location within the multicounty North 

Coast viticultural area and its overlap 

with the Alexander Valley and Northern 

Sonoma viticultural areas, we are 

interested in receiving comments on 

whether the evidence submitted in the 

petition regarding the distinguishing 

features of the proposed viticultural area 

sufficiently differentiates it from those 

existing viticultural areas, and, in 

general, whether the evidence submitted 

warrants the establishment of the 

proposed viticultural area within the 

existing North Coast viticultural area 

and portions of the Alexander Valley 

and Northern Sonoma viticultural areas. 

Further, we note that the petitioner 

provides detailed evidence regarding 

the geographical features that 

distinguish the entire proposed Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area 

(including the overlap area) from the 

greater portion of the Alexander Valley 

viticultural area. We are interested in 

receiving comments on whether 

approval of the proposed viticultural 

area with the overlap is appropriate. 

That is, are the geographical features of 

the proposed viticultural area 

sufficiently different from those of the 

Alexander Valley viticultural area so 

that overlap is inappropriate, or are 

there geographical features of the 

proposed viticultural area that are 

sufficiently similar to those of the 

Alexander Valley viticultural area so 

that overlap is appropriate? We are also 

interested in comments, based on any 

asserted lack of sufficient similarity 

between geographical features of the 

proposed viticultural area and those of 

the Alexander Valley viticultural area, 

on whether the potential overlap with 

the Alexander Valley and Northern 

Sonoma viticultural areas should be 

avoided by curtailing both the 

Alexander Valley and Northern Sonoma 

viticultural areas so that these existing 

viticultural areas would merely border 

on rather than overlap the proposed 

Pine Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural 

area, or whether both the Alexander 

Valley and Northern Sonoma 

viticultural areas should be extended to 

completely encompass the new area. 

Please provide any available specific 

information in support of your 

comments. 

Because ‘‘Mayacmas’’ and 

‘‘Mayacamas’’ are alternate spellings of 

the same name, we are interested in any 

comments concerning whether ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas’’ should be the 

name of this viticultural area or should 

the name be ‘‘Pine MountainMayacamas’’. Additionally, because of 

the potential impact of the 

establishment of the proposed Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area 

on wine labels that include the term 

‘‘Pine Mountain-Mayacmas’’ or an 

alternate spelling, such as ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Mayacamas’’ as discussed 

above under Impact on Current Wine 

Labels, we are particularly interested in 

comments regarding whether there will 

be a conflict between either of these 

terms and currently used brand names. 

If a commenter believes that a conflict 

will arise, the comment should describe 

the nature of that conflict, including any 

negative economic impact that approval 

of the proposed viticultural area will 

have on an existing viticultural 

enterprise. We are also interested in 

receiving suggestions for ways to avoid 

any conflicts, for example, by adopting 

a modified or different name for the 

viticultural area. 

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 erulemaking portal, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A link to the 

docket is available under Notice No. 105 

on the TTB Web site at http:// 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

29692 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 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. We do not 

acknowledge receipt of comments, and 

we consider 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 

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, we will post, and the 

public may view, copies of this notice, 

selected supporting materials, and any 

electronic or mailed comments we 

receive about this proposal. A direct 

link to the Regulations.gov docket 

containing this notice and the posted 

comments received on it is available on 

the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/ 

wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml under 

Notice No. 105. You may also reach the 

docket containing this notice and the 

posted comments received on it 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. 

We may omit voluminous attachments 

or material that we consider unsuitable 

for posting. 

You and other members of the public 

may view copies of this notice, all 

related petitions, maps and other 

supporting materials, and any electronic 

or mailed comments we receive about 

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 our 

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. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this proposed 

regulation, if adopted, would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed 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 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 

Drafting Information 

Nancy Sutton of the Regulations and 

Rulings Division drafted this notice. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we propose to amend title 27, 

chapter 1, 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. Subpart C is amended by adding 

§ 9.__ to read as follows: 

§ 9.__ Pine Mountain-Mayacmas. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas’’. For purposes of 

part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Pine MountainMayacmas’’ is a term of viticultural 

significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The three United 

States Geological Survey 1: 24,000 scale 

topographic maps used to determine the 

boundary of the Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area are titled: 

(1) Asti Quadrangle—California, 1998; 

(2) Cloverdale Quadrangle— 

California, 1960, photoinspected 1975; 

and 

(3) Highland Springs Quadrangle— 

California, 1959, photorevised 1978. 

(c) Boundary. The Pine MountainMayacmas viticultural area is located in 

Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, 

California. The boundary of the Pine 

Mountain-Mayacmas viticultural area is 

as described below: 

(1) The beginning point is on the Asti 

map at the intersection of Pine 

Mountain Road and the SonomaMendocino County line, section 35, 

T12N, R10W. From the beginning point, 

proceed southwesterly on Pine 

Mountain Road to its intersection with 

a light duty road known locally as Green 

Road, section 33, T12N, R10W; then 

(2) Proceed northerly on Green Road 

approximately 500 feet to its first 

intersection with the 1,600-foot contour 

line, section 33, T12N, R10W; then 

(3) Proceed northwesterly along the 

meandering 1,600-foot contour line, 

crossing onto the Cloverdale map in 

section 32, T12N, R10W, and continue 

to the contour line’s intersection with 

the Sonoma-Mendocino County line at 

the northern boundary of section 31, 

T12N, R10W; then 

(4) Proceed northeasterly along the 

meandering 1,600-foot contour line to 

its intersection with the intermittent 

Ash Creek, section 29, T12N, R10W; 

then 

(5) Proceed northeasterly in a straight 

line, crossing onto the Asti map, to the 

unnamed 2,769-foot peak located south 

of Salty Spring Creek, section 20, T12N, 

R10W; then 

(6) Continue northeasterly in a 

straight line, crossing onto the Highland 

Springs map, to the unnamed 2,792-foot 

peak in the northeast quadrant of 

section 21, T12N, R10W; then 

(7) Proceed east-southeasterly in a 

straight line, crossing onto the Asti map, 

to the unnamed 2,198-foot peak in 

section 23, T12N, R10W; and then 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 102 / Thursday, May 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29693 

(8) Proceed south-southeasterly in a 

straight line, returning to the beginning 

point. 

Signed: May 24, 2010. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12868 Filed 5–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0803] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, 

Oakland/Alameda, CA, Schedule 

Change 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

modify the drawbridge operation 

regulation for the Alameda County and 

the Army Corps of Engineers owned 

drawbridges across Oakland Inner 

Harbor Tidal Canal, between Oakland 

and Alameda, California so that four 

hours advance notice for openings 

would be required from the waterway 

user to the bridge owner, between the 

hours 4:30 p.m. and 9 a.m. daily. With 

the exception of Federal Holidays, 

openings at all other times would be on 

signal except during interstate rush 

hours, 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 

6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

when the drawbridges need not be 

opened for vessels. However, the draws 

would open during the above closed 

periods for vessels which must, for 

reasons of safety, move on a tide or 

slack water, if at least four hours 

advance notice is given. The proposed 

rule is requested by Alameda County to 

reduce the bridge staffing requirements 

during periods of reduced openings. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

August 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by the Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2009–0803 using any 

one of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these methods. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail David H. Sulouff, 

Chief, Bridge Section, Waterways 

Management Branch, 11th Coast Guard 

District, telephone 510–437–3516, 

e-mail address 

David.H.Sulouff@USCG.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2009–0803), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (http:// 

www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when it is received at the Docket 

Management Facility. We recommend 

that you include your name and a 

mailing address, an e-mail address, or a 

phone number in the body of your 

document so that we can contact you if 

we have questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2009–0803’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit them by 

mail and would like to know that they 

reached the Facility, please enclose a 

stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period and may change 

the rule based on your comments. 

A request for comments has been 

published in the Coast Guard Local 

Notice to Mariners. All comments 

received will be included for the record 

in the electronic docket ‘‘USCG–2009– 

0803’’. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘ USCG–2009– 

0803’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit either the 

Docket Management Facility in Room 

W12–140 on the ground floor of the 

Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. We have an 

agreement with the Department of 

Transportation to use the Docket 

Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting, but you may submit a request 

using one of the four methods under 

ADDRESSES. Please explain why one 

would be beneficial. If we determine 

that one would aid this rulemaking, we 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS