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

the 1,452-foot elevation point, and 

continue south-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.3 mile to 

the intersection of two light-duty roads 

locally known as S. El Pomar Road and 

Homestead Road, Asuncion Land Grant; 

then 

(9) Proceed west-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 1.1 miles to 

the point where an unnamed light-duty 

road locally known as Templeton Road 

intersects with an unnamed intermittent 

stream (where Templeton Road makes a 

90 degree turn at its junction with two 

unnamed unimproved roads), Asuncion 

Land Grant; then 

(10) Proceed westerly (downstream) 

along the unnamed intermittent stream 

approximately 0.5 mile to the stream’s 

confluence with the Salinas River, 

Asuncion Land Grant; then 

(11) Proceed westerly (downstream) 

along the Salinas River approximately 

2.3 miles to the river’s intersection with 

the boundary line of the Paso de Robles 

Land Grant; then 

(12) Proceed southwesterly along the 

boundary line of the Paso de Robles 

Land Grant approximately 2.3 miles to 

the point where the boundary line turns 

sharply to the northwest; then 

(13) Proceed northwesterly 

approximately 4.65 miles along the 

boundary line of the Paso de Robles 

Land Grant, crossing onto the York 

Mountain map, to the point where the 

boundary line turns due north 

(coincides with the southeast corner of 

section 32, T27S/R11E); then 

(14) Proceed north and then northnortheasterly along the boundary line of 

the Paso de Robles Land Grant 

approximately 1.5 miles to the point 

where the boundary line turns sharply 

to the northwest (coincides with the 

eastern-most point of section 20, T27S/ 

R11E); then 

(15) Proceed northwesterly along the 

boundary line of the Paso de Robles 

Land Grant approximately 0.3 mile to 

the eastern-most fork of an unnamed 

three-fork tributary of the Jack Creek; 

then 

(16) Proceed northerly (downstream) 

along the unnamed intermittent 

tributary of Jack Creek approximately 

0.15 mile to the tributary’s confluence 

with Jack Creek, Paso de Robles Land 

Grant; then 

(17) Proceed southeasterly 

(downstream) along Jack Creek 

approximately 1.8 miles to the creek’s 

intersection with an unnamed light-duty 

road locally known as Jack Creek Road 

(near BM 920), Paso de Robles Land 

Grant; then 

(18) Proceed northeasterly and then 

east-southeasterly along Jack Creek Road 

approximately 1 mile to the road’s 

intersection with State Route 46; then 

(19) Proceed east on State Route 46 

approximately 0.15 mile to the road’s 

intersection with an unnamed light-duty 

road locally known as Hidden Valley 

Road, Paso de Robles Land Grant; then 

(20) Proceed southeasterly and then 

easterly on Hidden Valley Road 

approximately 2.2 miles, crossing onto 

the Templeton map, to the road’s 

intersection with an unnamed light-duty 

road locally known as Vineyard Drive, 

Paso de Robles Land Grant; then 

(21) Proceed east on Vineyard Drive 

approximately 0.85 mile to the road’s 

intersection with an unnamed light-duty 

road locally known as S. Bethel Road, 

Paso de Robles Land Grant; then 

(22) Proceed north-northeasterly on S. 

Bethel Road and then N. Bethel Road 

approximately 1.7 miles to the road’s 

fifth intersection with an unnamed 

intermittent stream, Paso de Robles 

Land Grant; then 

(23) Proceed westerly (upstream) 

along the unnamed intermittent stream 

and then the stream’s middle branch 

approximately 1.1 miles to the marked 

end of the stream, and then continue 

due west in a straight line 

approximately 0.05 mile to State Route 

46 (Cayucos Road), Paso de Robles Land 

Grant; then 

(24) Proceed northeasterly on State 

Route 46 (Cayucos Road) approximately 

0.8 mile to BM 924, Paso de Robles 

Land Grant; then 

(25) Proceed due north in a straight 

line to the southeast corner of section 

12, T27S/R11E, and continue north 

along the eastern boundary line of 

section 12, a total of approximately 1.1 

miles, to the section boundary line’s 

intersection with a light-duty road 

locally known as Live Oak Road; then 

(26) Proceed easterly on Live Oak 

Road approximately 0.2 mile to the 

road’s intersection with an unnamed 

intermittent stream, Paso de Robles 

Land Grant; then 

(27) Proceed northwesterly (upstream) 

along the unnamed intermittent stream 

approximately 0.35 mile to the eastern 

boundary line of section 12, T27S/R11E; 

then 

(28) Proceed north along the eastern 

boundary line of section 12, T27S/R11E, 

to the section’s northeast corner, and 

then proceed east along the southern 

boundary line of section 6, T27S/R11E, 

a total of approximately 1.3 miles, to the 

intersection of the section 6 boundary 

line with an unnamed light-duty road 

locally known as Arbor Road; then 

(29) Proceed south-southeasterly on 

Arbor Road approximately 0.35 mile to 

the road’s first intersection with an 

unnamed intermittent stream, Paso de 

Robles Land Grant; then 

(30) Proceed southeasterly and then 

easterly (downstream) along the 

unnamed intermittent stream 

approximately 1.4 miles to the stream’s 

intersection with an unnamed light-duty 

road known locally as S. Vine Street, 

just west of the U.S. 101/State Route 46 

interchange, Paso de Robles Land Grant; 

then 

(31) Proceed northerly along S. Vine 

Street (which generally parallels U.S. 

101) approximately 1.8 miles to the 

street’s intersection with the marked 

city of Paso Robles Corporate Boundary 

line (concurrent with the locally-known 

intersection of S. Vine and 1st Streets), 

Paso de Robles Land Grant; then 

(32) Proceed east along the marked 

city of Paso Robles Corporate Boundary 

line (now very approximate to the 

alignment of 1st Street and then Niblick 

Road) approximately 0.5 mile, returning 

to the beginning point. 

Signed: September 4, 2014. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: September 9, 2014. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2014–24169 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2013–0004; T.D. TTB–124; 

Ref: Notice No. 135] 

RIN 1513–AB96 

Establishment of the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County Viticultural Area 

and Realignments of the Mendocino 

and Redwood Valley Viticultural Areas 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the 

approximately 26,260-acre ‘‘Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County’’ viticultural area in 

Mendocino County, California. The 

viticultural area lies entirely within the 

multi-county North Coast viticultural 

area. TTB also modifies the boundaries 

of the Mendocino viticultural area and 

the Redwood Valley viticultural area to 

eliminate overlaps with the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County viticultural area. 

TTB designates viticultural areas to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60969 

allow vintners to better describe the 

origin of their wines and to allow 

consumers to better identify wines they 

may purchase. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 10, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; 

phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

provides that these regulations should, 

among other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels, and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the FAA Act 

pursuant to section 1111(d) of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The 

Secretary has delegated various 

authorities through Treasury 

Department Order 120–01 (Revised), 

dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB 

Administrator to perform the functions 

and duties in the administration and 

enforcement of this law. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) allows the establishment of 

definitive viticultural areas and the use 

of their names as appellations of origin 

on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth 

standards for the preparation and 

submission of petitions for the 

establishment or modification of 

American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 

lists the approved AVAs. 

Definition 

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

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

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region having 

distinguishing features as described in 

part 9 of the regulations and a name and 

a delineated boundary as established in 

part 9 of the regulations. These 

designations allow vintners and 

consumers to attribute a given quality, 

reputation, or other characteristic of a 

wine made from grapes grown in an area 

to its geographic origin. The 

establishment of AVAs allows vintners 

to describe more accurately the origin of 

their wines to consumers and helps 

consumers to identify wines they may 

purchase. Establishment of an AVA is 

neither an approval nor an endorsement 

by TTB of the wine produced in that 

area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations outlines the procedure for 

proposing an AVA and provides that 

any interested party may petition TTB 

to establish a grape-growing region as an 

AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes 

standards for petitions for the 

establishment of AVAs. Petitions to 

establish an AVA must include the 

following: 

• Evidence that the area within the 

proposed AVA boundary is nationally 

or locally known by the AVA name 

specified in the petition; 

• An explanation of the basis for 

defining the boundary of the proposed 

AVA; 

• A narrative description of the 

features of the proposed AVA that affect 

viticulture, such as climate, geology, 

soils, physical features, and elevation, 

that make the proposed AVA distinctive 

and distinguish it from adjacent areas 

outside the proposed AVA boundary; 

• A copy of the appropriate United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) 

showing the location of the proposed 

AVA, with the boundary of the 

proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; 

and 

• A detailed narrative description of 

the proposed AVA boundary based on 

USGS map markings. 

Eagle Peak Mendocino County Petition 

TTB received three petitions on behalf 

of local grape growers from Ralph Jens 

Carter, one proposing the establishment 

of the ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County’’ 

AVA and two separate companion 

petitions proposing the modification of 

the boundaries of the existing 

‘‘Mendocino’’ AVA (27 CFR 9.93) and 

‘‘Redwood Valley’’ AVA (27 CFR 9.153). 

The proposed AVA and the two existing 

AVAs lie entirely within Mendocino 

County and the multi-county North 

Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed 

Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA 

contains approximately 26,260 acres, of 

which approximately 120 acres are 

dedicated to 16 commercially producing 

vineyards. The proposed AVA lies to 

the west of both the Redwood Valley 

AVA and the eastern portion of the Vshaped Mendocino AVA. According to 

the petition, the distinguishing features 

of the proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino 

County AVA include its marineinfluenced climate, strong breezes, 

mountainous topography, and shallow 

soils with low water-holding 

capabilities. 

As originally proposed, a small 

portion of the Eagle Peak Mendocino 

County AVA would overlap portions of 

the Redwood Valley and Mendocino 

AVAs. To eliminate the potential 

overlaps, the petitioner later proposed 

modifying the boundaries of the 

Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs. 

The proposed boundary modifications 

would eliminate the potential overlaps 

and would remove the overlapped areas 

from the Redwood Valley and 

Mendocino AVAs. The proposed 

modifications would reduce the size of 

the 32,047-acre Redwood Valley AVA 

by approximately 1,430 acres and 

reduce the size of the 327,437-acre 

Mendocino AVA by approximately 

1,900 acres. The overlapping areas 

would then become part of the Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County AVA. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

TTB published Notice No. 135 in the 

Federal Register on June 27, 2013 (78 

FR 38613), proposing to establish the 

Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA and 

modify the boundaries of the Redwood 

Valley and Mendocino AVAs. In the 

notice, TTB summarized the evidence 

from the petition regarding the name, 

boundary, and distinguishing features 

for the proposed viticultural area. The 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

viticultural area include climate, 

geology, topography, and soils. The 

notice also compared the distinguishing 

features of the proposed viticultural area 

to the surrounding areas. For a 

description of the evidence relating to 

the name, boundary, and distinguishing 

features of the proposed viticultural 

area, and for a comparison of the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

viticultural area to the surrounding 

areas, see Notice No. 135. 

In Notice No. 135, TTB solicited 

comments on the accuracy of the name, 

boundary, climatic, and other required 

information submitted in support of the 

petition. In addition, given the proposed 

AVA’s location within the existing 

North Coast AVA, TTB solicited 

comments on whether the evidence 

submitted in the petition regarding the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

AVA sufficiently differentiates the 

proposed viticultural area from the 

North Coast AVA. TTB also asked for 

comments on whether the geographical 

features of the proposed viticultural area 

are so distinguishable from the 

surrounding North Coast AVA that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County 

AVA should no longer be part of the 

existing viticultural area. Finally, TTB 

asked for comments on the proposed 

modification of the Redwood Valley and 

Mendocino AVAs and whether the 

evidence presented in the proposed 

Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA 

petition sufficiently differentiated the 

overlapped regions from the established 

AVAs to warrant removing the 

overlapped regions from the two AVAs 

and including the overlapping regions 

entirely within the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County AVA. The comment 

period on Notice No. 135 closed on 

August 26, 2013. 

In response to Notice No. 135, TTB 

received a total of seven comments, six 

of which supported the establishment of 

the Eagle Peak Mendocino County 

viticultural area and the realignment of 

the Redwood Valley and Mendocino 

AVA boundaries. Commenters included 

local residents, vineyard owners, and 

winemakers, as well as a local winery 

organization. None of the comments 

received during the comment period 

addressed the question of whether the 

Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA is 

so distinguishable from the North Coast 

AVA that it should no longer be part of 

the North Coast AVA. TTB received no 

comments in opposition of either the 

Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA, as 

proposed, or the proposed boundary 

modifications. 

Only one of the seven comments 

specifically addressed the proposed 

modification of the Redwood Valley and 

Mendocino AVAs’ boundaries 

(comment 3). The commenter, who 

owns a vineyard that is within the 

proposed AVA but not within the 

proposed realignment area, supported 

the proposed boundary modifications 

because ‘‘[t]he Eagle Peak area is all 

upland, mountainous terrain with 

shallow soils, while Redwood Valley is 

mostly level with deep soils’’ and the 

Mendocino AVA ‘‘contains many 

different characteristics and is not 

limited to the upland area.’’ TTB notes 

that there are two vineyards located 

within the proposed realignment area, 

and the petition included letters from 

both vineyard owners in support of the 

proposed boundary modifications. 

The seventh comment (comment 7) 

requested an extension of the comment 

period so that the commenter could 

further review the proposed rule. The 

extension request was received too late 

for TTB to extend the original comment 

period. Therefore, TTB published 

Notice No. 135A in the Federal Register 

on August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53103), reopening the comment period for an 

additional 60 days, until October 28, 

2013. 

Comments Received During the Reopened Comment Period 

During the re-opened comment 

period, TTB received six additional 

comments regarding the proposed 

establishment of the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County AVA and the 

realignment of the Redwood Valley and 

Mendocino AVAs. Two of the six 

comments specifically supported the 

proposed AVA (comments 9 and 10). 

One of the two comments was from a 

wine marketing and sales consultant, 

and the second comment was from the 

United States Representative from the 

district that includes the proposed Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County viticultural 

area. Comment 10 also specifically 

supported the proposed realignment of 

the Redwood Valley AVA boundary, 

stating that the proposed realignment 

area consists of mountainous and 

hillside terrain that is more consistent 

with the terrain of the proposed Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County AVA than the 

flatter, lower terrain found within the 

majority of the Redwood Valley AVA. 

Two of the comments received during 

the re-opened comment period did not 

address the substance of the proposed 

rulemaking. One of those two 

commenters stated that he neither 

supported nor opposed establishment of 

the proposed AVA or the proposed 

boundary modifications, but rather 

requested that TTB remove the periods 

from the township and range 

designations in the proposed regulatory 

text of § 9.93 so as to conform to the 

style of the current regulatory text for 

that section (comment 8). TTB notes 

that the periods in the proposed 

regulatory text are consistent with the 

style of the current regulatory text of 

§ 9.93, and the proposed amendment to 

the section will be adopted as final 

without change. The other comment 

(comment 11), which was addressed to 

the Department of Justice, called for 

stronger alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and 

explosives transfer regulations, topics 

which are outside the scope of the 

proposed rule. Accordingly, that topic 

will not be addressed in this 

rulemaking. 

Comments Regarding Proposed AVA 

Name 

The final two comments received 

during the re-opened comment period 

addressed the proposed AVA name. One 

comment was in the form of a letter 

from an attorney on behalf of his client, 

Fetzer Vineyards of Hopland, California 

(comment 12). Fetzer Vineyards is 

currently owned by Vin ̃ a Concha y Toro 

SA and is no longer associated with the 

Fetzer family, including Jacob and Ben 

Fetzer, who own Masut Vineyards, and 

John Fetzer, who owns Saracina 

Vineyards. Both Masut Vineyards and 

Saracina Vineyards are within the 

proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County 

AVA, and Jacob, John, and Ben Fetzer 

are signatories to the petition to 

establish that AVA. 

Comment 12 stated that Fetzer 

Vineyards does not object to the 

establishment of the proposed AVA but 

does object to the proposed Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County name. According to 

the comment, the petitioners failed to 

provide sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate both that the region of the 

proposed AVA is known as ‘‘Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County’’ and that the 

proposed name is associated with an 

area known for viticulture. Instead, the 

comment stated that the region is 

known as either ‘‘Forsythe Creek’’ or 

‘‘Walker Valley.’’ As evidence, the 

comment referenced USDA soil surveys 

from 1910 that were included in the 

original petition. In those soil surveys, 

the region of the proposed AVA is 

described as a ‘‘cohesive unit, referred 

to as Forsythe Creek Valley and 

Forsythe Creek Gap.’’ The comment also 

noted that there is a large valley within 

the proposed AVA that is labeled on 

USGS maps as ‘‘Walker Valley.’’ 

Finally, comment 12 stated that if 

TTB established the proposed AVA with 

the name ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino 

County,’’ the public would confuse the 

AVA name with the Fetzer Vineyards’ 

‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand name. 

Furthermore, comment 12 claimed that 

Fetzer Vineyards would become legally 

barred from continuing the use of its 

brand name, since it would be unable to 

source enough grapes from within the 

proposed AVA or Mendocino County. 

In response to comment 12, Jacob 

Fetzer, owner of Masut Vineyards, 

submitted a comment (comment 13) on 

behalf of the petitioners for the 

proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County 

AVA. Comment 13 challenged the claim 

that the petition failed to provide 

adequate evidence that the proposed 

AVA is known as ‘‘Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County.’’ The comment also 

disagreed with the claim that the 

proposed name would cause consumer 

confusion and force Fetzer Vineyards to 

abandon its ‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand 

name. 

After consideration of the petition and 

the two comments regarding the 

proposed name, TTB has determined 

that the petition to establish the Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County AVA contained 

sufficient evidence showing that the 

region of the proposed AVA is currently 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60971 

known by that name. TTB finds that 

comment 12 did not provide evidence 

that the region of the proposed AVA is 

not known as Eagle Peak Mendocino 

County, nor did it provide any evidence 

that the region is currently known as 

either ‘‘Forsythe Creek’’ or ‘‘Walker 

Valley.’’ Although old USDA soil 

surveys do refer to the area as ‘‘Forsythe 

Creek Valley’’ or ‘‘Forsythe Creek Gap,’’ 

TTB regulations require the name 

evidence to show that the region of the 

proposed AVA is currently known by 

the proposed name. 

With respect to the statement in 

comment 12 that the petition must 

provide evidence that the proposed 

AVA name has historical significance 

with regard to viticulture, TTB notes 

that its regulations (27 CFR 9.12(a)(1)) 

only require the petition to demonstrate 

that the proposed AVA name is 

‘‘currently and directly associated with 

an area in which viticulture exists.’’ The 

regulations do not require that the 

proposed name itself be associated with 

viticulture, only that viticulture must be 

taking place within the region known by 

the proposed AVA name. The petition 

to establish the Eagle Peak Mendocino 

County AVA provided the names of the 

commercial vineyards within the 

proposed AVA as evidence of current 

viticultural activity within the region 

known by the proposed name. 

Finally, with respect to the claim that 

Fetzer Vineyards would be forced to 

abandon its ‘‘Eagle Peak Merlot’’ brand 

name if the proposed AVA is 

established with the name Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County, TTB notes that 

Notice No. 135 explicitly proposed that 

only the full name of the proposed AVA 

be designated as a term of viticultural 

significance. Furthermore, Notice No. 

135 specifically stated, and this 

rulemaking re-confirms, that any wine 

bottlers using ‘‘Eagle Peak,’’ standing 

alone, as a brand name on a wine label 

would be able to continue to use the 

brand name. The establishment of the 

proposed Eagle Peak Mendocino County 

AVA would not affect Fetzer Vineyards’ 

ability to bottle wine under the ‘‘Eagle 

Peak Merlot’’ brand name, regardless of 

where the grapes used to make the wine 

were grown. TTB also believes that the 

proposed AVA name ‘‘Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County’’ is sufficiently 

distinct from the brand name ‘‘Eagle 

Peak Merlot’’ and is unlikely to cause 

consumer confusion. 

TTB Determination 

After careful review of the petition 

and all 13 of the comments received in 

response to Notice No. 135, TTB finds 

that the evidence provided by the 

petitioner supports the establishment of 

the approximately 26,260-acre Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County AVA and the 

modification of the boundaries of the 

Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs. 

Accordingly, under the authority of the 

FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, and 

part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB 

establishes the ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino 

County’’ AVA in Mendocino County, 

California. 

TTB has also determined that the land 

within the AVA will remain part of the 

larger North Coast AVA. The Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County AVA experiences 

the marine fog and breezes that are the 

primary features of the North Coast 

AVA. However, due to its much smaller 

size, the soil, terrain, and climate of the 

Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA are 

more uniform than those of the large, 

multi-county North Coast AVA. The 

uniqueness of the soil, terrain, and 

climate of the Eagle Peak Mendocino 

County AVA also distinguish the AVA 

from the surrounding region. Therefore, 

TTB is recognizing the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County area as a distinct 

AVA within the larger North Coast 

AVA. 

Furthermore, TTB modifies the 

boundaries of the Redwood Valley and 

Mendocino AVAs as described in Notice 

No. 135. TTB has determined that the 

mountainous terrain, shallow soils, cool 

growing season temperatures, and gusty 

winds of the realignment area described 

in Notice No. 135 are more consistent 

with the features of the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County AVA than with the 

low level valleys, deep alluvial soils, 

and warm temperatures of the Redwood 

Valley and Mendocino AVAs. 

Therefore, TTB is removing the 

realignment area from the Redwood 

Valley and Mendocino AVAs and 

placing it entirely within the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County AVA. These changes 

are effective 30 days from the date of 

publication of this document. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative boundary 

description of the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County AVA and the 

modified boundaries of the Redwood 

Valley and Mendocino AVAs in the 

regulatory text published at the end of 

this final rule. 

Maps 

The petitioner provided the required 

maps, and they are listed below in the 

regulatory text. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. With the 

establishment of this AVA, its name, 

‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County,’’ will 

be recognized as a name of viticultural 

significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). 

The text of the regulation clarifies this 

point. Once this final rule becomes 

effective, wine bottlers using the name 

‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino County’’ in a 

brand name, including a trademark, or 

in another label reference as to the 

origin of the wine, will have to ensure 

that the product is eligible to use the 

viticultural name as an appellation of 

origin. 

The establishment of the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County AVA will not affect 

any existing viticultural area, and any 

bottlers using ‘‘North Coast’’ as an 

appellation of origin or in a brand name 

for wines made from grapes grown 

within the North Coast viticultural areas 

will not be affected by the establishment 

of this new viticultural area. The 

establishment of the Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County AVA will allow 

vintners to use ‘‘Eagle Peak Mendocino 

County’’ and ‘‘North Coast’’ as 

appellations of origin for wines made 

from grapes grown within the Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County AVA if the 

wines meet the eligibility requirements 

for the appellation. 

For a wine to be labeled with an AVA 

name or with a brand name that 

includes an AVA name, at least 85 

percent of the wine must be derived 

from grapes grown within the area 

represented by that name, and the wine 

must meet the other conditions listed in 

27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not 

eligible for labeling with an AVA name 

and that name appears in the brand 

name, then the label is not in 

compliance and the bottler must change 

the brand name and obtain approval of 

a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name 

appears in another reference on the 

label in a misleading manner, the bottler 

would have to obtain approval of a new 

label. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing an AVA name 

that was used as a brand name on a 

label approved before July 7, 1986. See 

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

Transition Period 

Once this final rule to establish the 

Eagle Peak Mendocino County AVA and 

to modify the boundaries of the 

Redwood Valley and Mendocino AVAs 

becomes effective, a transition rule will 

apply to labels for wines produced from 

grapes grown in the areas that were 

formerly within the Redwood Valley 

and Mendocino AVAs. A label 

containing the words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’ 

or ‘‘Mendocino’’ (other than in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

phrase ‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County’’) in the brand 

name or as an appellation of origin may 

be used on such wine bottled for up to 

two years from the effective date of this 

final rule, provided that such label was 

approved prior to the effective date of 

this final rule and that the wine 

conforms to the standards for use of the 

label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) 

in effect prior to the final rule. At the 

end of this two-year transition period, if 

a wine is no longer eligible for labeling 

with the Redwood Valley or Mendocino 

AVA names (e.g., less than 85 percent 

of the wine is derived from grapes 

grown in the Redwood Valley or 

Mendocino AVAs, as modified in this 

final rule), then a label containing the 

words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’ or 

‘‘Mendocino’’ (other than in the phrase 

‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County’’) in the brand name 

or as an appellation of origin would not 

be permitted on the bottle. TTB believes 

that the two-year period should provide 

affected label holders with adequate 

time to use up any existing labels. This 

transition period is described in the 

regulatory text for the Redwood Valley 

and Mendocino AVAs published at the 

end of this final rule. TTB notes that 

wine eligible for labeling with the 

Redwood Valley or Mendocino 

viticultural areas names under the new 

boundaries of the Redwood Valley and 

Mendocino AVAs will not be affected 

by this two-year transition period. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

TTB certifies that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The regulation imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of a viticultural 

area name would be the result of a 

proprietor’s efforts and consumer 

acceptance of wines from that area. 

Therefore, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required. 

Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a significant regulatory action as 

defined by Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30, 1993. Therefore, no 

regulatory assessment is required. 

Drafting Information 

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division drafted this final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

The Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter 

I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

■ 2. Amend § 9.93 by revising paragraph 

(c)(7), redesignating paragraphs (c)(8) 

through (19) as paragraphs (c)(16) 

through (27), and adding new 

paragraphs (c)(8) through (15), and 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 9.93 Mendocino. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) Thence due west along the T.18N./ 

T.17N. common line until the common 

line intersects with the R.13W./R.12W. 

common line; 

(8) Thence in a straight line in a 

south-southwesterly direction, crossing 

onto the Willits map, to the intersection 

of the 1,600-foot contour line and Baker 

Creek (within McGee Canyon) along the 

west boundary line of Section 25, 

T.17N./R.13W.; 

(9) Thence in a southeasterly 

direction (downstream) along Bakers 

Creek to where the creek intersects with 

the 1,400-foot contour line in Section 

25, T.17N/R.13W.; 

(10) Thence in a straight line in a 

southeasterly direction to the southeast 

corner of Section 36, T.17N./R.13W.; 

(11) Thence in a straight line in a 

west-southwesterly direction to the 

intersection of U.S. Highway 101 and an 

unnamed road known locally as Reeves 

Canyon Road in Section 1, T.16N./

R.13W.; 

(12) Thence in a straight line in a 

southeasterly direction to the southeast 

corner of Section 1, T.16N./R.13W.; 

(13) Thence in a straight line in a 

south-southwesterly direction to the 

intersection of an unnamed, 

unimproved road and an unnamed, 

intermittent stream, approximately 500 

feet south of Seward Creek, in Section 

12, T.16N./R.13W.; 

(14) Thence in a straight line in a 

west-southwesterly direction to the 

southwest corner of Section 12, T.16N./ 

R.13W.; 

(15) Thence in a straight line in a 

southwesterly direction to the 

southwest corner of Section 14, T.16N./ 

R.13W.; 

* * * * * 

(d) Transition period. A label 

containing the word ‘‘Mendocino’’ in 

the brand name (other than in the 

phrase ‘‘Mendocino County’’ or ‘‘Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County’’) or as an 

appellation of origin approved prior to 

November 10, 2014 may be used on 

wine bottled before November 10, 2016 

if the wine conforms to the standards for 

use of the label set forth in § 4.25 or 

§ 4.39(i) of this chapter in effect prior to 

November 10, 2014. 

■ 3. Amend § 9.153 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) and adding 

paragraphs (c)(10) through (12) and (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 9.153 Redwood Valley. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The beginning point is in the 

northeastern portion of the Ukiah map 

at the point where State Highway 20 

crosses the R11W/R12W range line 

along the south bank of the East Fork of 

the Russian River, T16N/R12W. From 

the beginning point, proceed north 

along the R11W/R12W range line, 

crossing onto the Redwood Valley map, 

to the northeast corner of section 1, 

T16N/R12W; then 

(2) Proceed west along the northern 

boundary of section 1 to the section’s 

northwest corner, T16N/R12W; then 

(3) Proceed north along the eastern 

boundary lines of sections 35, 26, 23, 

14, 11, and 2 to the T17N/T18N 

common boundary line at the northeast 

corner of section 2, T17N/R12W; then 

(4) Proceed west along the T17N/

T18N common line to the northwest 

corner of section 6, T17N/R12W; then 

(5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a 

straight line, crossing onto the Laughlin 

Range map, to the intersection of the 

1,400-foot contour line and Bakers 

Creek within McGee Canyon, section 25, 

T17N/R13W; then 

(6) Proceed southeasterly in a straight 

line approximately 1.5 miles, crossing 

onto the Redwood Valley map, to the 

southeast corner of section 36, T17N/

R13W; then 

(7) Proceed west-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.55 mile, 

crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, 

to the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 

and an unnamed road known locally as 

Reeves Canyon Road, section 1, T16N/ 

R13W; then 

(8) Proceed southeasterly in a straight 

line approximately 0.9 mile, crossing 

onto the Redwood Valley map, to the 

southeast corner of section 1, T16N/

R13W; then 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 60973 

(9) Proceed south-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.65 mile to 

the intersection of an unnamed, 

unimproved road and an unnamed, 

intermittent stream, approximately 500 

feet south of Seward Creek, section 12, 

T16N/R13W; then 

(10) Proceed west-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.9 mile, 

crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, 

to the southwest corner of section 12, 

T16N/R13W; then 

(11) Proceed east-southeasterly in a 

straight line, crossing onto the far 

northeastern corner of the Orrs Springs 

map, then continuing onto the Ukiah 

map, to the intersection of State 

Highway 20 and a road known locally 

as North State Street (old U.S. Highway 

101), north of Calpella, T16N/R12W; 

then 

(12) Proceed easterly along State 

Highway 20, returning to the beginning 

point. 

(d) Transition period. A label 

containing the words ‘‘Redwood Valley’’ 

in the brand name or as an appellation 

of origin approved prior to November 

10, 2014 may be used on wine bottled 

before November 10, 2016 if the wine 

conforms to the standards for use of the 

label set forth in § 4.25 or § 4.39(i) of 

this chapter in effect prior to November 

10, 2014. 

■ 4. Add § 9.237 to read as follows: 

§ 9.237 Eagle Peak Mendocino County. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County’’. For purposes 

of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County’’ is a term of 

viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The four United 

States Geographical Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County viticultural 

area are titled: 

(1) Laughlin Range, California, 

provisional edition 1991; 

(2) Redwood Valley, Calif., 1960, 

photo revised 1975; 

(3) Orrs Springs, California, 

provisional edition 1991; and 

(4) Greenough Ridge, California, 

provisional edition 1991. 

(c) Boundary. The Eagle Peak 

Mendocino County viticultural area is 

located in Mendocino County, 

California. The boundary of the Eagle 

Peak Mendocino County viticultural 

area is as follows: 

(1) The beginning point is located on 

the Laughlin Range map within McGee 

Canyon at the point where the 1,600- 

foot contour line intersects with Bakers 

Creek near the western boundary of 

section 25, T17N/R13W. From the 

beginning point, proceed southeasterly 

(downstream) approximately 0.2 mile 

along Bakers Creek to the creek’s 

intersection with the 1,400-foot contour 

line, section 25, T17N/R13W; then 

(2) Proceed southeasterly in a straight 

line approximately 1.5 miles, crossing 

onto the Redwood Valley map, to the 

southeast corner of section 36, T17N/

R13W; then 

(3) Proceed west-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.55 mile, 

crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, 

to the intersection of U.S. Highway 101 

and an unnamed road locally known as 

Reeves Canyon Road, section 1, T16N/ 

R13W; then 

(4) Proceed southeasterly in a straight 

line approximately 0.9 mile, crossing 

onto the Redwood Valley map, to the 

southeast corner of section 1, T16N/

R13W; then 

(5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.65 mile to 

the intersection of an unnamed, 

unimproved road and an unnamed 

intermittent stream located 

approximately 500 feet south of Seward 

Creek, section 12, T16N/R13W; then 

(6) Proceed west-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.9 mile, 

crossing onto the Laughlin Ridge map, 

to the southwest corner of section 12, 

T16N/R13W; then 

(7) Proceed west-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.8 mile, 

crossing onto the Orrs Springs map, to 

the 1,883-foot elevation point in section 

14, T16N/R13W; then 

(8) Proceed west-southwesterly in a 

series of three straight lines (totaling 

approximately 3.15 miles in distance), 

first to the 1,836-foot elevation point in 

section 15, T16N/R13W; then to the 

1,805-foot elevation point in section 16, 

T16N/R13W; and then to the 2,251-foot 

elevation point in section 20, T16W/

R13W; then 

(9) Proceed south-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.8 mile to 

the 2,562-foot elevation point, section 

20, T16N/R13W; then 

(10) Proceed north-northwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.8 mile to 

the 2,218-foot elevation point, section 

19, T16N/R13W; then 

(11) Proceed northeasterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.35 mile to 

the 2,112-foot elevation point in the 

southeast corner of section 18, T16N/

R13W; then 

(12) Proceed north-northeasterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.9 mile to 

the 2,344-foot elevation point, section 

17, T16N/R13W; then 

(13) Proceed northwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 1.8 miles, 

crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, 

to the intersection of the R13W/R14W 

common boundary line and an 

unnamed, unimproved road east of 

Leonard Lake, section 1, T16N/R14W; 

then 

(14) Proceed west-northwesterly along 

the unnamed, unimproved road to the 

road’s intersection with the 2,000 foot 

contour line between Leonard Lake and 

Mud Lake, section 1, T16N/R13W; then 

(15) Proceed north-northwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 1.6 miles, 

crossing onto the Greenough Ridge map, 

to the 2,246-foot elevation point, section 

26, T17N/R14W; then 

(16) Proceed northerly in a straight 

line approximately 0.9 mile to the 

2,214-foot elevation point, section 23, 

T17N/R14W; then 

(17) Proceed northeasterly in a 

straight line approximately 1 mile, 

crossing onto the Laughlin Range map, 

to the peak of Impassable Rocks, section 

24, T17N/R14W; then 

(18) Proceed northwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.95 mile, 

crossing onto the Greenough Ridge map, 

to the 2,617-foot elevation point, section 

14, T17N/R14W, and continue 

northwesterly in a straight line 

approximately 0.8 mile to the 2,836-foot 

elevation point of Irene Peak, section 11, 

T17N/R14W; then 

(19) Proceed northerly in a straight 

line approximately 1 mile to the 

intersection of 3 unnamed unimproved 

roads approximately 0.3 mile west of 

the headwaters of Walker Creek (locally 

known as the intersection of Blackhawk 

Drive, Walker Lake Road, and Williams 

Ranch Road) section 2, T17N/R14W; 

then 

(20) Proceed easterly along the 

unnamed improved road, locally known 

as Blackhawk Drive, approximately 1.35 

miles, crossing onto the Laughlin range 

map, to the road’s intersection with the 

section 2 eastern boundary line, T17N/ 

R14W; then 

(21) Proceed east-northeasterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.75 mile, 

returning to the 2,213 elevation point 

near the northeast corner of section 1, 

T17N/R14W; then 

(22) Proceed southeasterly in a 

straight line approximately 3.55 miles to 

BM 1893 (0.2 mile south of Ridge) in 

section 16, T17N/R13W, and then 

continue southeasterly in a straight line 

approximately 0.85 mile to a radio 

facility located at approximately 2,840 

feet in elevation in the Laughlin Range, 

section 15, T17N/R13W; then 

(23) Proceed easterly in a straight line 

approximately 0.85 mile to another 

radio facility located at approximately 

3,320 feet in elevation in the Laughlin 

Range, section 14, T17N/R13W; then 

(24) Proceed southerly in a straight 

line approximately 1.5 miles to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
60974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Typically, employers subject to FLSA regulatory 

changes have 30 or 60 days to adjust before a 

rulemaking becomes effective. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 

801(a)(3)(A). Prior to the Home Care Final Rule, the 

longest effective date delay for a Wage and Hour 

Division rule was 120 days. See 78 FR 60495 (citing 

69 FR 22126 (Apr. 23, 2004)). 

2,452-foot elevation point in section 26, 

T17N/R13W; then 

(25) Proceed southeasterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.4 mile to 

the intersection of the 1,800-foot 

contour line with Bakers Creek within 

McGee Canyon, section 26, T17N/

R13W; then 

(26) Proceed southeasterly 

(downstream) approximately 0.2 mile 

along Bakers Creek, returning to the 

beginning point. 

Signed: August 25, 2014. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: August 29, 2014. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2014–24177 Filed 10–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4110–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Wage and Hour Division 

29 CFR Part 552 

RIN 1235–AA05 

Application of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act to Domestic Service; 

Announcement of Time-Limited NonEnforcement Policy 

AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, 

Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Policy statement. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor’s 

(Department) October 1, 2013, Final 

Rule amending regulations regarding 

domestic service employment, which 

extends Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA) protections to most home care 

workers will become effective on 

January 1, 2015. The Department is not 

changing this effective date. This 

document announces a time-limited 

non-enforcement policy. For six 

months, from January 1, 2015 to June 

30, 2015, the Department will not bring 

enforcement actions against any 

employer as to violations of FLSA 

obligations resulting from the amended 

regulations. For the following six 

months, from July 1, 2015 to December 

31, 2015, the Department will exercise 

prosecutorial discretion in determining 

whether to bring enforcement actions, 

with particular consideration given to 

the extent to which States and other 

entities have made good faith efforts to 

bring their home care programs into 

compliance with the FLSA since 

promulgation of the Final Rule. 

Throughout the 12-month duration of 

this policy, the Department will 

continue extensive outreach and 

technical assistance efforts, in particular 

with States regarding publicly funded 

home care programs. 

DATES: Enforcement of the final rule 

published October 1, 2013, at 78 FR 

60454: From January 1, 2015, to June 30, 

2015, the Department will not bring 

enforcement actions against any 

employer as to violations of FLSA 

obligations resulting from the amended 

regulations; from July 1, 2015, to 

December 31, 2015, the Department will 

exercise prosecutorial discretion in 

determining whether to bring 

enforcement actions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Hancock, Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Policy, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour 

Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Room S–3502, FP Building, 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 

343–5940 (this is not a toll-free 

number), email: HomeCare@dol.gov. 

Copies of this document may be 

obtained in alternative formats (Large 

Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), 

upon request, by calling (202) 693–0675 

(not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD 

callers may dial toll-free (877) 889–5627 

to obtain information or request 

materials in alternative formats. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Non-Enforcement Policy 

On October 1, 2013, the Wage and 

Hour Division of the Department of 

Labor (Department) issued Application 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act to 

Domestic Service; Final Rule, 78 FR 

60454 (Home Care Final Rule or Final 

Rule). The Final Rule amended the 

domestic service employment 

regulations under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA or Act), 29 U.S.C. 

201 et seq., which are contained in 29 

CFR Part 552. Among other changes, the 

Final Rule (1) modified the definition of 

‘‘companionship services’’ and (2) 

prohibited third party employers (i.e., 

employers of domestic service 

employees other than the individuals 

receiving services or the individuals’ 

families or households) from claiming 

either the companionship services 

exemption from the FLSA’s minimum 

wage and overtime compensation 

requirements or the live-in domestic 

service employee exemption from the 

FLSA’s overtime compensation 

requirement. See 78 FR 60463–73, 

60480–83, 60557 (relevant regulatory 

changes to be codified at 29 CFR 552.6, 

552.109). 

The Department explained in the 

preamble to the Final Rule that the 

changes to the domestic service 

employment regulations should go into 

effect as soon as practicable because 

they were intended to serve the 

important purpose of extending basic 

labor standards to home care workers, 

which in turn helps ensure that 

individuals and their families can rely 

on a professional, trained workforce to 

provide high-quality services. 78 FR 

60455, 60495. The Department also 

acknowledged, however, that complex 

Federal and State systems fund a 

significant portion of the home care 

services provided across the country, 

and making adjustments to operations, 

programs, and budgets in order to 

comply with the FLSA could take time. 

Id. at 60494–95. Therefore, in response 

to comments received in the course of 

the rulemaking process, the Department 

set an effective date of January 1, 2015, 

an unprecedented 15 months after the 

publication of the Final Rule. Id.1

Since promulgating the Final Rule, 

the Department has conducted extensive 

technical assistance for the regulated 

community. Specifically, the 

Department has directly reached 

thousands of people through over 100 

webinars, conference calls, meetings, 

and presentations, engaging 

representatives from State governments, 

associations of State Medicaid and other 

relevant agencies, consumers, disability 

and senior citizens’ advocates, veterans’ 

organizations, worker representatives, 

and industry groups, among others. 

Furthermore, to help stakeholders learn 

more about the changes associated with 

the Final Rule, the Department created 

a home care Web page, which contains 

links to fact sheets, FAQs, webinar 

recordings, interactive web tools, and 

other materials, including two 

Administrator’s Interpretations issued 

this year in response to stakeholder 

questions regarding the application of 

the FLSA to shared living arrangements 

and joint employment of home care 

workers by public entities in consumerdirected programs. See www.dol.gov/

whd/homecare. Moreover, the 

Department has engaged in targeted 

outreach to the governments of all 50 

States. Through this outreach, the 

Department has provided extensive 

technical assistance to States as they 

implement the Home Care Final Rule in 

publicly funded programs in an effort to 

encourage implementation of the Final 

Rule in a manner that expands wage 

protections for most home care workers 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES