Proposed Establishment of the Rattlesnake Hills Viticultural Area (2004R-678P), 31396-31401 [05-10880]

Download as PDF 31396 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 104 / Wednesday, June 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 series airplanes. That action would have required inspecting the engine fire handles of the overhead panel in the cockpit, and replacing the engine fire handles if necessary. Since the NPRM was issued, we have received new data that the identified unsafe condition has been corrected on all airplanes that would have been subject to the NPRM. Accordingly, the proposed AD is withdrawn. ADDRESSES: You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at https:// dms.dot.gov, or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL–401, Washington, DC. This docket number is FAA–2005–20501; the directorate identifier for this docket is 2004–NM– 251–AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Groves, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1503; fax (425) 227–1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new AD for all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11172). The NPRM would have required inspecting the engine fire handles of the overhead panel in the cockpit, and replacing the engine fire handles if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by reports of failure of the internal circuit of the engine fire handles of the overhead panel in the cockpit. The proposed actions were intended to prevent failure of the internal circuit of the engine fire handles, which could result in failure of the fuel shut-off valves to close and failure of the fire extinguishing agent to discharge in the event of an engine fire. Actions Since NPRM Was Issued Since we issued the NPRM, the airplane manufacturer has provided us with data that indicate that the identified unsafe condition (failure of VerDate jul<14>2003 14:50 May 31, 2005 Jkt 205001 the internal circuit of the engine fire handles, which could result in failure of the fuel shut-off valves to close and failure of the fire extinguishing agent to discharge in the event of an engine fire) has already been corrected on all airplanes that would have been subject to the NPRM, and that all affected spare parts have been returned to the manufacturer and destroyed. FAA’s Conclusions Upon further consideration, we have determined that the actions that would have been required by the NPRM have already been done on all affected airplanes, and the identified unsafe condition has been corrected. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn. Withdrawal of the NPRM does not preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA to any course of action in the future. Regulatory Impact Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Withdrawal Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA–2005–20501; Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–251– AD, which was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11172). Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 2005. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 05–10868 Filed 5–31–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Notice No. 47] RIN 1513—AA77 Proposed Establishment of the Rattlesnake Hills Viticultural Area (2004R–678P) Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to establish the Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area in Yakima County in south central Washington State. The proposed 68,500acre area is totally within the established Columbia Valley viticultural area. 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 August 1, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses: • Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 47, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044– 4412. • 202–927–8525 (facsimile). • nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail). • https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/ index.htm. An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site. • https://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments). You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this notice by appointment at the TTB Library, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202–927–2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at https://www.ttb.gov/ alcohol/rules/index.htm. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415–271–1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide the consumer with adequate information regarding a product’s identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 104 / Wednesday, June 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these regulations. 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 geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area’s boundary prominently marked. Rattlesnake Hills Petition Mr. Gail Puryear, on behalf of himself and ten vineyard and winery owners, VerDate jul<14>2003 14:50 May 31, 2005 Jkt 205001 submitted a petition to TTB proposing the establishment of the 68,500-acre Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area. It is within the Yakima Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.69), which is inside the larger Columbia Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.74). As of 2005, the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area has 1,227 acres of vines in commercial production, according to the petition. The Rattlesnake Hills name is well documented on State and national maps, including a 1910 USGS map. The proposed boundaries encompass the Rattlesnake Hills name recognition area and the distinguishing features of the region, including topography, soils, and climate. The south central region of Washington State, home to the Rattlesnake Hills, includes the existing viticultural areas of Red Mountain, Yakima Valley, Walla Walla Valley, and Columbia Valley. The Walla Walla Valley and Columbia Valley viticultural areas extend from southern Washington into northern Oregon. Name Evidence The USGS maps for Elephant Mountain, Yakima East, Wapato, Granger NE, Granger NW, and Toppenish all identify the Rattlesnake Hills in Yakima County, Washington. The American Automobile Association (AAA) map for the Oregon and Washington State Series, published February 2003, shows Rattlesnake Hills in south central Washington, between the towns of Yakima and Kennewick. The Washington State Highways 1996– 1997 map, published by the Washington State Department of Transportation, shows the Rattlesnake Hills area to the east and west of Highway 241 and south of Highway 24. The 1910 USGS Zillah map, reprinted in 1935, identifies Rattlesnake Hills along the T12N and T11N township line in ranges R21E and R22E. The map shows no human habitation in the Rattlesnake Hills area, with the settlements of Zillah, Granger, and Sunnyside to the south, along the Yakima River. A Sunset magazine article in its August 1997 edition, ‘‘Bringing home the Harvest—Pacific Northwest,’’ by Jim McCausland, describes a tour that includes the Yakima, Washington, area and mentions Rattlesnake Hills. The article describes the Roza Canal at the base of the orchard- and vineyardcovered Rattlesnake Hills. Boundary Evidence The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area, the petition explains, is an isolated grape-growing region with PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 31397 boundaries defined by the area’s distinctive climate, soils, and topography. The Rattlesnake Hills name applies to the entire area within the proposed boundaries, as found on the USGS maps provided with the petition. Nancy B. Hultquist, Ph.D., professor of Geography and Land Studies at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, and John F. Hultquist, Ph.D., former Adjunct Assistant Professor of Geography, Central Washington University, prepared the Rattlesnake Hills area’s boundary documentation and geographical evidence for the viticultural area petition. This information is provided below. The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area, within the larger Yakima Fold Belt, includes a series of asymmetrical anticlines with generally east-west trending, separated by basins. Also, the Rattlesnake Hills range has a steep north-facing side with a gentler south-facing slope. The south side of the range is the northern most region of the proposed viticultural area. The petition’s written boundary description and accompanying USGS maps define the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area boundaries. The proposed north boundary line of the viticultural area approximates the range’s ridgeline, separating the range’s south side from the north side. The proposed east boundary line follows the 120° west longitude line and (Bonneville) power lines. The proposed south boundary line meanders along the Sunnyside Canal, which flows southeast from the Yakima River. The terrain to the north of the Sunnyside Canal, and within the proposed boundaries, is hilly and characterized by ridge spurs to the north of the canal. Finally, the proposed west boundary line is a combination of the Sunnyside Canal and Interstate Highway 82. Elevation is a primary distinguishing feature of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area, the petition states. The proposed boundary line, at a minimum 850 feet in elevation, generally corresponds to the upslope of the foothills, as depicted on the USGS maps provided with the petition. Viticulture is considered possible with irrigation between 850 feet and 2,000 feet in elevation, the petition specifies. Regional elevations below the 850foot contour line are not conducive to successful viticulture based on damaging spring and fall frosts, heavy winterkill conditions, alkali soils and high water tables. As evidence, the petition states that vineyards planted in the region at elevations below 850 feet failed after years of struggle. The petition includes as an example the E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 31398 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 104 / Wednesday, June 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules Thalheimer vineyard project, two miles south of Sunnyside Canal and close to the city of Granger, which is below 850 feet in elevation. The project lasted ten years, but experienced continued vine damage from winterkill conditions. Also, in another example presented, William Pettit planted chardonnay grapes west of Toppenish on the valley floor, seven miles south of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area. The vineyard suffered annual winterkill caused by vines reaching down to perennial water. After only three successful vintages in six years, Mr. Pettit removed the vineyard in 1987. Distinguishing Features The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area’s distinguishing features include its geographical orientation among large and small mountain ranges, hillside topography, moderate microclimate, and soils unique to the area. Geography The Cascade Range, rising to about 6,000 feet in elevation, runs north to south and divides eastern and western Washington State, as shown on USGS maps and the AAA map for the Oregon and Washington State Series. The high Cascade Range altitudes protect eastern Washington from much of the Pacific Ocean’s temperature influence and rainfall, the petition explains. The Rattlesnake Hills, which vary in elevation from 850 feet to 3,085 feet, create a north flank to the Toppenish Creek/Yakima Valley floor at its immediate south, according to USGS maps and the petition. Also, south central Washington has a series of smaller east-west mountain ranges between the Cascade Range and the Columbia River. Topography The Rattlesnake Hills range is oriented east to west. The ridgeline has dissected canyons, terraces, and ridges running south off the main ridge to the Yakima River, as the petition explains and the USGS maps depict. Vineyards are usually on ridges and terraces, and in areas with good air drainage, which lessens frost and winterkill conditions. The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area topography includes a multitude of landscapes with differing aspect and hill slope positions, the petition explains. Also, low glacial terraces comprise the balance of the terrain found within the proposed viticultural area. Beyond the proposed boundaries, the rest of the Yakima Valley viticultural area, which surrounds the proposed viticultural area on the east, south and west sides, has a more open and consistent landscape when compared to the Rattlesnake Hills area. Climate The Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area petition includes data collected from eleven weather stations in the south central Washington State region, operated by Washington State University (WSU) under the Public Agricultural Weather System (PAWS). Two of the stations, the petition explains, are within the proposed viticultural area. Petition documentation shows the Buena station at 900 feet in elevation and the Outlook station at 1,300 feet in elevation, both within the proposed boundaries. The other nine stations are beyond the proposed Rattlesnake Hills boundaries, but within the south central Washington State region, according to the petition. The weather data provides an annual average and a 10-year average of the growing degree-day summary for each station, in most cases. (A degree-day is each degree of a day’s mean temperature that is above 50 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth; see ‘‘General Viticulture,’’ Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1975.) The chart below shows a 10-year average of the growing degree-day summary for each of the PAWS stations. Degree-day units, 10-year annual average Weather station Parker ........................................................................................................................................... Wapato .......................................................................................................................................... Moxee ........................................................................................................................................... Sunnyside ..................................................................................................................................... Port of Sunnyside ......................................................................................................................... WSU Roza .................................................................................................................................... WSU HQ ....................................................................................................................................... Benton City ................................................................................................................................... Badger Canyon ............................................................................................................................. Buena ............................................................................................................................................ Outlook .......................................................................................................................................... The degree-day temperatures within the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area vary significantly from the surrounding regions, according to PAWS data. Growing season temperatures are especially warmer in the Red Mountain viticultural area to the east of the proposed viticultural area around Badger Canyon and Benton City. Also, the areas between the Rattlesnake Hills region and Red Mountain have much cooler growing seasons, as documented by the Port of Sunnyside and WSU Roza weather stations. The Canadian-Polar air brought into eastern Washington by northeastern VerDate jul<14>2003 14:50 May 31, 2005 Jkt 205001 winds can kill the vines, according to the petition. The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area is protected from these damaging winds by the Umptanum Ridge, Yakima Ridge, and Rattlesnake Hills that lie to the northeast. The ridges and hills divert the chilling winds eastward toward the Red Mountain and Walla Walla viticultural areas. Soil The soils of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area differ from soils in other Washington State viticultural areas, according to the petition. The PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 3133 2540 2096 2498 2554 2552 2588 3036 3297 2683 2870 Location related to Rattlesnake Hills area 1 mile west. 7 miles west. 2 miles north. 2.5 miles east. 6 miles southeast. 11 miles southeast. 14 miles southeast. 30 miles southeast. 40 miles southeast. In Rattlesnake Hills. In Rattlesnake Hills. formation of the soils in the Rattlesnake Hills area was influenced by glacial fluvial (water transported) and eolian (wind transported silty loess) soils. The lower layer formation influences include volcanic cobbles and tuffaceous sands from the Ellensburg Formation. The Rattlesnake Hills elevations at or above 1,100 feet perch beyond the influence of the Missoula Floods, according to the petition. Soils above the flooding influence developed on older volcanic sediments of the Ellensburg Formation. The soil parent materials weathered in a climate with 6 to 12 inches of rainfall annually and a E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 104 / Wednesday, June 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules dry summer. The two main soil classifications include Aridosols (desert soils) and Mollisols (prairie soils), according to the ‘‘U.S. Soils Taxonomy’’ (Soil Survey Staff, 1999; Boling, Frazier, and Busacca, 1998). The Rattlesnake Hills soil is silt-loam or loam at the upper elevations, the petition notes. The characteristic soil textures contrast to the sand, loamy sand, and sand textures of the nearby Prosser Flats, Red Mountain, and Horse Heaven Hills regions. The primary soils suitable for viticulture within the Rattlesnake Hills area include the Warden Series silt loams and a composite of HarwoodBurke-Wiehl series silt loams. The Warden Series soils, which are very deep and well drained, occupy terraces underlain by glacial fluvial sediments. Also, the Harwood-Burke-Wiehl series, a complex composition of three distinctively different soils, occupies the ridge tops and side slopes of steep hills. The three-soil composition forms from loess (wind-blown, silt-sized material) that overlies remnants of the Ellensburg Formation. The composition is common within the Rattlesnake Hills area, the petition notes, but is seldom found elsewhere in the Yakima Valley region. Also, the soil is shallow, which is in contrast to the uniformly deep, siltloamy and sandy soils found in the balance of the Yakima Valley viticultural area. Other soils in the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area include the Kiona silt loam series in the northwest corner, the petition states. Also, along the top of the Rattlesnake Ridge, the Lickskillet series silt loam and the Starbuck series provide a suitable viticultural environment when irrigation is available. Common soil characteristics within the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area include a mesic soil regime, the petition states. The annual soil temperature is between 8 degrees Centigrade and 15 degrees Centigrade. Mean summer soil temperatures vary between 15 degrees Centigrade and 22 degrees Centigrade. Also, the soil pH is consistent, ranging from neutral at pH 6.6 to mildly alkaline at pH 8.4. The topsoil layer is generally formed by loess and lesser amounts of volcanic ash, according to the petition. When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, the Rattlesnake Hills region received between one half-inch and one inch of volcanic ash topsoil. The northern border of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area sits at the highest elevations of the range, as noted on the USGS maps. The northfacing slope of the Rattlesnake Hills, VerDate jul<14>2003 14:50 May 31, 2005 Jkt 205001 immediately beyond the proposed north boundary line, is covered with Lickskillet, a very stony silt loam on 5 to 45 percent slopes. The very stony soils, steep slopes and lack of irrigation make this terrain unsuitable for viticulture, the petition states. The eastern border of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area starts at the intersection of the Rattlesnake Hills summit with the 120°00′ west longitude line, according to the petition’s written boundary description. The boundary line follows the longitude line south to its intersection with the Bonneville power lines and then continues south to the Sunnyside Canal. The topography east of the proposed boundary line is a large basin with Warden Series silt loams on 2 to 5 percent slopes. The area has some Esquatzel silty loam on the same gentle slopes. Along the southern boundary lines of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area, and south beyond Sunnyside Canal, the area changes to large flat bottom terrain and small remnants of glacial terraces, the petition notes. Esquatzel Series silt loams dominate the terrain, according to the ‘‘Soil Survey of Yakima County Area, Washington,’’ (Lenfesty and Reedy, 1985). The area has Warden Series soils that, as the petition explains, are more geologically eroded and on a lower elevation terrain than the Warden Series of the Rattlesnake Hills region to the north. Past the western border of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area, USGS maps note, the hills drop down into the Yakima River. Immediately west of the river, and beyond the petitioned boundaries, lies the valley floor with the Weirman Association soils, as documented in the ‘‘Soil Survey of Yakima Indian Reservation Irrigated Area, Washington, Part of Yakima County,’’ (United States Department of Agriculture, 1976). Continuing westward from the boundary line, the Ashue-Naches Association occupies the bottomland of an older Yakima River flood plain. Also, as the Yakima River Valley inclines westward to Ahtanum Ridge, the prevalent Warden Series soil creates a common link to the Rattlesnake Hills area, according to the petition. However, the Warden Series soil in the Rattlesnake Hills terrain includes the exposure of the Ellensburg Formation. The Ahtanum Ridge soil does not include such an exposure. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 31399 viticultural area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this notice. Maps The petitioners provided 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, ‘‘Rattlesnake Hills’’ will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance. Consequently, wine bottlers using ‘‘Rattlesnake Hills’’ in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area’s name as an appellation of origin. On the other hand, we do not believe that any single part of the proposed viticultural area name standing alone, such as ‘‘Rattlesnake,’’ would have viticultural significance if the new area is established. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies only the full ‘‘Rattlesnake Hills’’ name as a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been 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 to use the viticultural area name as an appellation of origin 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 viticultural area name 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 new label or a previously approved label uses the name ‘‘Rattlesnake Hills’’ for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new label will not be approved, and the previously approved label will be subject to revocation, upon the effective date of the approval of the Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area 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. E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 31400 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 104 / Wednesday, June 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules Public Participation Comments Invited We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should establish the proposed viticultural area. We are also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments. Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area on wine labels that include the words ‘‘Rattlesnake Hills’’ as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, we are particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area name 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. Although TTB believes that only the full name ‘‘Rattlesnake Hills’’ should be considered to have viticultural significance upon establishment of the proposed new viticultural area, we also invite comments from those who believe that ‘‘Rattlesnake’’ standing alone would have viticultural significance upon establishment of the area. Comments in this regard should include documentation or other information supporting the conclusion that use of ‘‘Rattlesnake’’ on a wine label could cause consumers and vintners to attribute to the wine in question the quality, reputation, or other characteristic of wine made from grapes grown in the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area. Submitting Comments Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways: VerDate jul<14>2003 14:50 May 31, 2005 Jkt 205001 • Mail: You may send written comments to TTB at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. • Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to 202–927–8525. Faxed comments must— • (1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper; • (2) Contain a legible, written signature; and • (3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages. • E-mail: You may e-mail comments to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments transmitted by electronic mail must— (1) Contain your e-mail address; (2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and (3) Be legible when printed on 8.5-by 11-inch paper. • Online form: We provide a comment form with the online copy of this notice on our Web site at https:// www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. Select the ‘‘Send comments via e-mail’’ link under this notice number. • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To submit comments to us via the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit https:// www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments. 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, in light of all circumstances, whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality Select the ‘‘View Comments’’ link under this notice number to view the posted comments. 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, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Procedures 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 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Public Disclosure Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Library at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our librarian at the above address or telephone 202–927–2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments. For your convenience, we will post this notice and comments we receive on the TTB Web site. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Library. To access the online copy of this notice and the submitted comments, visit https:// www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 2. Amend subpart C by adding § 9.lll to read as follows: § 9.___ Rattlesnake Hills. (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is ‘‘Rattlesnake Hills’’. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Rattlesnake Hills’’ is a term of viticultural significance. (b) Approved Maps. The eight United States Geological Survey, 1:24,000 scale, topographic maps used to determine the boundaries of the Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area are titled— (1) Yakima East Quadrangle, Washington—Yakima Co., 1953, Photorevised 1985; (2) Elephant Mountain Quadrangle, Washington—Yakima Co., 1953, Photorevised 1985; (3) Granger NW Quadrangle, Washington—Yakima Co., 1965; E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 104 / Wednesday, June 1, 2005 / Proposed Rules (4) Granger NE Quadrangle, Washington—Yakima Co., 1964; (5) Sunnyside Quadrangle, Washington—Yakima Co., 1965, Photorevised 1978; (6) Granger Quadrangle, Washington—Yakima Co., 1965; (7) Toppenish Quadrangle, Washington—Yakima Co., 1958, Photorevised 1985; and (8) Wapato Quadrangle, Washington— Yakima Co., 1958, Photorevised 1985. (c) Boundary. The Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area is located in Yakima County, Washington. The area’s boundaries are defined as follows— (1) The point of beginning is on the Yakima East map at the point where a line drawn straight east from the west end of the Wapato Dam on the Yakima River intersects Interstate Highway 82, section 17, T12N/R19E. This line coincides with the boundary of the Yakima Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.69). From the beginning point, the Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area boundary line— (2) Proceeds straight east-southeast, crossing onto the Elephant Mountain map, to the 2,192-foot peak of Elephant Mountain, section 16, T12N/R20E; then (3) Continues straight southeast, crossing over the northeast corner of the Toppenish map, and continuing onto the Granger NW map, to the 2,186-foot pinnacle of Zillah Peak, section 32, T12N/R21E; then (4) Continues straight east-southeast, crossing onto the Granger NE map, to the 3,021-foot peak of High Top Mountain, section 32, T12N/R22E; then (5) Continues straight east-southeast to the 2,879-foot peak in the northeast quadrant of section 3, T11N/R22E, and continues in the same direction in a straight line, to the line’s intersection with the 120°00′ west longitude line in section 1 of T11N/R22E along the east margin of the Granger NE map; then (6) Proceeds straight south along the 120°00′ west longitude line to its intersection with a set of power lines in section 24, T11N/R22E, on the east margin of the Granger NE map; then (7) Follows the power lines southwest, crossing onto the Sunnyside map, to their intersection with the Sunnyside Canal, section 8, T10N/R22E; then (8) Follows the meandering Sunnyside Canal generally northwest, crossing over the northeast corner of the Granger map, and continuing over the Granger NW map, the Toppenish map, and onto the Wapato map to the canal’s intersection with Interstate Highway 82, section 27 west boundary line, T12N/ R19E; then VerDate jul<14>2003 14:50 May 31, 2005 Jkt 205001 (9) Follows Interstate Highway 82 northwest for 2.75 miles, crossing onto the Yakima East map, and returns to the point of beginning. Signed: May 17, 2005. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. 05–10880 Filed 5–31–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–31–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [OPP–2005–0069; FRL–7712–7] Inert Ingredients; Proposal to Revoke 34 Pesticide Tolerance Exemptions for 31 Chemicals Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 34 exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance that are associated with 31 inert ingredients because these substances are no longer contained in active Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) pesticide product registrations. These ingredients are subject to reassessment by August 2006 under section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Upon the issuance of the final rule revoking the tolerance exemptions, the 34 tolerance exemptions will be counted as ‘‘reassessed’’ for purposes of FFDCA’s section 408(q). DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2005. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number OPP–2005–0069, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Website: https:// www.epa.gov/edocket/. EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA’s preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP– 2005–0069. • Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 31401 Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP–2005–0069. • Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP–2005–0069. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number OPP–2005–0069. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// www.epa.gov/edocket/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the regulations.gov websites are ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102) (FRL–7181–7). Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket/. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 1, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31396-31401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10880]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 47]
RIN 1513--AA77

Proposed Establishment of the Rattlesnake Hills Viticultural Area
(2004R-678P)

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 Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area in Yakima County in
south central Washington State. The proposed 68,500-acre area is
totally within the established Columbia Valley viticultural area. 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 August 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses:
Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 47, P.O. Box 14412,
Washington, DC 20044-4412.
202-927-8525 (facsimile).
nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail).
https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. An online
comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site.
https://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking portal;
follow instructions for submitting comments).
You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate
maps, and any comments we receive about this notice by appointment at
the TTB Library, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an
appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the
notice and comments online at https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/
index.htm.
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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and
Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925
Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-
1254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas

TTB Authority

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA
Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) requires that alcohol beverage labels
provide the consumer with adequate information regarding a product's
identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those
labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
issue regulations to carry out its provisions.

[[Page 31397]]

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these
regulations.
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 grape-growing region
as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires
the petition to include--
Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally
and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
Historical or current evidence that supports setting the
boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as
climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the
proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
A description of the specific boundary of the proposed
viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological
Survey (USGS) maps; and
A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed
viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.

Rattlesnake Hills Petition

Mr. Gail Puryear, on behalf of himself and ten vineyard and winery
owners, submitted a petition to TTB proposing the establishment of the
68,500-acre Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area. It is within the
Yakima Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.69), which is inside the
larger Columbia Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.74). As of 2005, the
proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area has 1,227 acres of vines
in commercial production, according to the petition.
The Rattlesnake Hills name is well documented on State and national
maps, including a 1910 USGS map. The proposed boundaries encompass the
Rattlesnake Hills name recognition area and the distinguishing features
of the region, including topography, soils, and climate.
The south central region of Washington State, home to the
Rattlesnake Hills, includes the existing viticultural areas of Red
Mountain, Yakima Valley, Walla Walla Valley, and Columbia Valley. The
Walla Walla Valley and Columbia Valley viticultural areas extend from
southern Washington into northern Oregon.

Name Evidence

The USGS maps for Elephant Mountain, Yakima East, Wapato, Granger
NE, Granger NW, and Toppenish all identify the Rattlesnake Hills in
Yakima County, Washington. The American Automobile Association (AAA)
map for the Oregon and Washington State Series, published February
2003, shows Rattlesnake Hills in south central Washington, between the
towns of Yakima and Kennewick. The Washington State Highways 1996-1997
map, published by the Washington State Department of Transportation,
shows the Rattlesnake Hills area to the east and west of Highway 241
and south of Highway 24.
The 1910 USGS Zillah map, reprinted in 1935, identifies Rattlesnake
Hills along the T12N and T11N township line in ranges R21E and R22E.
The map shows no human habitation in the Rattlesnake Hills area, with
the settlements of Zillah, Granger, and Sunnyside to the south, along
the Yakima River.
A Sunset magazine article in its August 1997 edition, ``Bringing
home the Harvest--Pacific Northwest,'' by Jim McCausland, describes a
tour that includes the Yakima, Washington, area and mentions
Rattlesnake Hills. The article describes the Roza Canal at the base of
the orchard- and vineyard-covered Rattlesnake Hills.

Boundary Evidence

The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area, the petition
explains, is an isolated grape-growing region with boundaries defined
by the area's distinctive climate, soils, and topography. The
Rattlesnake Hills name applies to the entire area within the proposed
boundaries, as found on the USGS maps provided with the petition.
Nancy B. Hultquist, Ph.D., professor of Geography and Land Studies
at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, and John F. Hultquist,
Ph.D., former Adjunct Assistant Professor of Geography, Central
Washington University, prepared the Rattlesnake Hills area's boundary
documentation and geographical evidence for the viticultural area
petition. This information is provided below.
The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area, within the larger
Yakima Fold Belt, includes a series of asymmetrical anticlines with
generally east-west trending, separated by basins. Also, the
Rattlesnake Hills range has a steep north-facing side with a gentler
south-facing slope. The south side of the range is the northern most
region of the proposed viticultural area.
The petition's written boundary description and accompanying USGS
maps define the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area
boundaries. The proposed north boundary line of the viticultural area
approximates the range's ridgeline, separating the range's south side
from the north side. The proposed east boundary line follows the
120[deg] west longitude line and (Bonneville) power lines. The proposed
south boundary line meanders along the Sunnyside Canal, which flows
southeast from the Yakima River. The terrain to the north of the
Sunnyside Canal, and within the proposed boundaries, is hilly and
characterized by ridge spurs to the north of the canal. Finally, the
proposed west boundary line is a combination of the Sunnyside Canal and
Interstate Highway 82.
Elevation is a primary distinguishing feature of the proposed
Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area, the petition states. The proposed
boundary line, at a minimum 850 feet in elevation, generally
corresponds to the upslope of the foothills, as depicted on the USGS
maps provided with the petition. Viticulture is considered possible
with irrigation between 850 feet and 2,000 feet in elevation, the
petition specifies.
Regional elevations below the 850-foot contour line are not
conducive to successful viticulture based on damaging spring and fall
frosts, heavy winterkill conditions, alkali soils and high water
tables. As evidence, the petition states that vineyards planted in the
region at elevations below 850 feet failed after years of struggle. The
petition includes as an example the

[[Page 31398]]

Thalheimer vineyard project, two miles south of Sunnyside Canal and
close to the city of Granger, which is below 850 feet in elevation. The
project lasted ten years, but experienced continued vine damage from
winterkill conditions. Also, in another example presented, William
Pettit planted chardonnay grapes west of Toppenish on the valley floor,
seven miles south of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area.
The vineyard suffered annual winterkill caused by vines reaching down
to perennial water. After only three successful vintages in six years,
Mr. Pettit removed the vineyard in 1987.

Distinguishing Features

The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area's distinguishing
features include its geographical orientation among large and small
mountain ranges, hillside topography, moderate microclimate, and soils
unique to the area.
Geography
The Cascade Range, rising to about 6,000 feet in elevation, runs
north to south and divides eastern and western Washington State, as
shown on USGS maps and the AAA map for the Oregon and Washington State
Series. The high Cascade Range altitudes protect eastern Washington
from much of the Pacific Ocean's temperature influence and rainfall,
the petition explains.
The Rattlesnake Hills, which vary in elevation from 850 feet to
3,085 feet, create a north flank to the Toppenish Creek/Yakima Valley
floor at its immediate south, according to USGS maps and the petition.
Also, south central Washington has a series of smaller east-west
mountain ranges between the Cascade Range and the Columbia River.
Topography
The Rattlesnake Hills range is oriented east to west. The ridgeline
has dissected canyons, terraces, and ridges running south off the main
ridge to the Yakima River, as the petition explains and the USGS maps
depict. Vineyards are usually on ridges and terraces, and in areas with
good air drainage, which lessens frost and winterkill conditions.
The proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area topography
includes a multitude of landscapes with differing aspect and hill slope
positions, the petition explains. Also, low glacial terraces comprise
the balance of the terrain found within the proposed viticultural area.
Beyond the proposed boundaries, the rest of the Yakima Valley
viticultural area, which surrounds the proposed viticultural area on
the east, south and west sides, has a more open and consistent
landscape when compared to the Rattlesnake Hills area.
Climate
The Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area petition includes data
collected from eleven weather stations in the south central Washington
State region, operated by Washington State University (WSU) under the
Public Agricultural Weather System (PAWS). Two of the stations, the
petition explains, are within the proposed viticultural area. Petition
documentation shows the Buena station at 900 feet in elevation and the
Outlook station at 1,300 feet in elevation, both within the proposed
boundaries. The other nine stations are beyond the proposed Rattlesnake
Hills boundaries, but within the south central Washington State region,
according to the petition.
The weather data provides an annual average and a 10-year average
of the growing degree-day summary for each station, in most cases. (A
degree-day is each degree of a day's mean temperature that is above 50
degrees Fahrenheit, which is the minimum temperature required for
grapevine growth; see ``General Viticulture,'' Albert J. Winkler,
University of California Press, 1975.)
The chart below shows a 10-year average of the growing degree-day
summary for each of the PAWS stations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree-day units,
Weather station 10-year annual Location related to Rattlesnake Hills area
average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parker..................................... 3133 1 mile west.
Wapato..................................... 2540 7 miles west.
Moxee...................................... 2096 2 miles north.
Sunnyside.................................. 2498 2.5 miles east.
Port of Sunnyside.......................... 2554 6 miles southeast.
WSU Roza................................... 2552 11 miles southeast.
WSU HQ..................................... 2588 14 miles southeast.
Benton City................................ 3036 30 miles southeast.
Badger Canyon.............................. 3297 40 miles southeast.
Buena...................................... 2683 In Rattlesnake Hills.
Outlook.................................... 2870 In Rattlesnake Hills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The degree-day temperatures within the proposed Rattlesnake Hills
viticultural area vary significantly from the surrounding regions,
according to PAWS data. Growing season temperatures are especially
warmer in the Red Mountain viticultural area to the east of the
proposed viticultural area around Badger Canyon and Benton City. Also,
the areas between the Rattlesnake Hills region and Red Mountain have
much cooler growing seasons, as documented by the Port of Sunnyside and
WSU Roza weather stations.
The Canadian-Polar air brought into eastern Washington by
northeastern winds can kill the vines, according to the petition. The
proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area is protected from these
damaging winds by the Umptanum Ridge, Yakima Ridge, and Rattlesnake
Hills that lie to the northeast. The ridges and hills divert the
chilling winds eastward toward the Red Mountain and Walla Walla
viticultural areas.
Soil
The soils of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area
differ from soils in other Washington State viticultural areas,
according to the petition. The formation of the soils in the
Rattlesnake Hills area was influenced by glacial fluvial (water
transported) and eolian (wind transported silty loess) soils. The lower
layer formation influences include volcanic cobbles and tuffaceous
sands from the Ellensburg Formation.
The Rattlesnake Hills elevations at or above 1,100 feet perch
beyond the influence of the Missoula Floods, according to the petition.
Soils above the flooding influence developed on older volcanic
sediments of the Ellensburg Formation. The soil parent materials
weathered in a climate with 6 to 12 inches of rainfall annually and a

[[Page 31399]]

dry summer. The two main soil classifications include Aridosols (desert
soils) and Mollisols (prairie soils), according to the ``U.S. Soils
Taxonomy'' (Soil Survey Staff, 1999; Boling, Frazier, and Busacca,
1998).
The Rattlesnake Hills soil is silt-loam or loam at the upper
elevations, the petition notes. The characteristic soil textures
contrast to the sand, loamy sand, and sand textures of the nearby
Prosser Flats, Red Mountain, and Horse Heaven Hills regions.
The primary soils suitable for viticulture within the Rattlesnake
Hills area include the Warden Series silt loams and a composite of
Harwood-Burke-Wiehl series silt loams. The Warden Series soils, which
are very deep and well drained, occupy terraces underlain by glacial
fluvial sediments. Also, the Harwood-Burke-Wiehl series, a complex
composition of three distinctively different soils, occupies the ridge
tops and side slopes of steep hills. The three-soil composition forms
from loess (wind-blown, silt-sized material) that overlies remnants of
the Ellensburg Formation. The composition is common within the
Rattlesnake Hills area, the petition notes, but is seldom found
elsewhere in the Yakima Valley region. Also, the soil is shallow, which
is in contrast to the uniformly deep, silt-loamy and sandy soils found
in the balance of the Yakima Valley viticultural area.
Other soils in the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area
include the Kiona silt loam series in the northwest corner, the
petition states. Also, along the top of the Rattlesnake Ridge, the
Lickskillet series silt loam and the Starbuck series provide a suitable
viticultural environment when irrigation is available.
Common soil characteristics within the proposed Rattlesnake Hills
viticultural area include a mesic soil regime, the petition states. The
annual soil temperature is between 8 degrees Centigrade and 15 degrees
Centigrade. Mean summer soil temperatures vary between 15 degrees
Centigrade and 22 degrees Centigrade. Also, the soil pH is consistent,
ranging from neutral at pH 6.6 to mildly alkaline at pH 8.4.
The topsoil layer is generally formed by loess and lesser amounts
of volcanic ash, according to the petition. When Mount St. Helens
erupted in 1980, the Rattlesnake Hills region received between one
half-inch and one inch of volcanic ash topsoil.
The northern border of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural
area sits at the highest elevations of the range, as noted on the USGS
maps. The north-facing slope of the Rattlesnake Hills, immediately
beyond the proposed north boundary line, is covered with Lickskillet, a
very stony silt loam on 5 to 45 percent slopes. The very stony soils,
steep slopes and lack of irrigation make this terrain unsuitable for
viticulture, the petition states.
The eastern border of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural
area starts at the intersection of the Rattlesnake Hills summit with
the 120[deg]00' west longitude line, according to the petition's
written boundary description. The boundary line follows the longitude
line south to its intersection with the Bonneville power lines and then
continues south to the Sunnyside Canal. The topography east of the
proposed boundary line is a large basin with Warden Series silt loams
on 2 to 5 percent slopes. The area has some Esquatzel silty loam on the
same gentle slopes.
Along the southern boundary lines of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills
viticultural area, and south beyond Sunnyside Canal, the area changes
to large flat bottom terrain and small remnants of glacial terraces,
the petition notes. Esquatzel Series silt loams dominate the terrain,
according to the ``Soil Survey of Yakima County Area, Washington,''
(Lenfesty and Reedy, 1985). The area has Warden Series soils that, as
the petition explains, are more geologically eroded and on a lower
elevation terrain than the Warden Series of the Rattlesnake Hills
region to the north.
Past the western border of the proposed Rattlesnake Hills
viticultural area, USGS maps note, the hills drop down into the Yakima
River. Immediately west of the river, and beyond the petitioned
boundaries, lies the valley floor with the Weirman Association soils,
as documented in the ``Soil Survey of Yakima Indian Reservation
Irrigated Area, Washington, Part of Yakima County,'' (United States
Department of Agriculture, 1976). Continuing westward from the boundary
line, the Ashue-Naches Association occupies the bottomland of an older
Yakima River flood plain. Also, as the Yakima River Valley inclines
westward to Ahtanum Ridge, the prevalent Warden Series soil creates a
common link to the Rattlesnake Hills area, according to the petition.
However, the Warden Series soil in the Rattlesnake Hills terrain
includes the exposure of the Ellensburg Formation. The Ahtanum Ridge
soil does not include such an exposure.

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 petitioners provided 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, ``Rattlesnake Hills'' will be recognized as a name of
viticultural significance. Consequently, wine bottlers using
``Rattlesnake Hills'' in a brand name, including a trademark, or in
another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to
ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name
as an appellation of origin. On the other hand, we do not believe that
any single part of the proposed viticultural area name standing alone,
such as ``Rattlesnake,'' would have viticultural significance if the
new area is established. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory
text set forth in this document specifies only the full ``Rattlesnake
Hills'' name as a term of viticultural significance for purposes of
part 4 of the TTB regulations.
For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the
name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations,
at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been
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 to use the viticultural area name as an appellation of origin
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 viticultural area name
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
new label or a previously approved label uses the name ``Rattlesnake
Hills'' for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new
label will not be approved, and the previously approved label will be
subject to revocation, upon the effective date of the approval of the
Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a
viticultural area 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.

[[Page 31400]]

Public Participation

Comments Invited

We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether
we should establish the proposed viticultural area. We are also
interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the
name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in
support of the petition. Please provide any available specific
information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area on wine labels that
include the words ``Rattlesnake Hills'' as discussed above under Impact
on Current Wine Labels, we are particularly interested in comments
regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area
name 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.
Although TTB believes that only the full name ``Rattlesnake Hills''
should be considered to have viticultural significance upon
establishment of the proposed new viticultural area, we also invite
comments from those who believe that ``Rattlesnake'' standing alone
would have viticultural significance upon establishment of the area.
Comments in this regard should include documentation or other
information supporting the conclusion that use of ``Rattlesnake'' on a
wine label could cause consumers and vintners to attribute to the wine
in question the quality, reputation, or other characteristic of wine
made from grapes grown in the proposed Rattlesnake Hills viticultural
area.

Submitting Comments

Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and
mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language
acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of
comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit
comments in one of five ways:
Mail: You may send written comments to TTB at the address
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile
transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must--
(1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation
assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed
comments that exceed five pages.
E-mail: You may e-mail comments to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments
transmitted by electronic mail must--
(1) Contain your e-mail address;
(2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
(3) Be legible when printed on 8.5-by 11-inch paper.
Online form: We provide a comment form with the online
copy of this notice on our Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/
rules/index.htm. Select the ``Send comments via e-mail'' link under
this notice number.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To submit comments to us via
the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit https://www.regulations.gov and
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
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, in light of all circumstances, whether to hold a public
hearing.

Confidentiality

All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to
disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you
consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

Public Disclosure

You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate
maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Library at
1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at
20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our librarian at the above
address or telephone 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to
request copies of comments.
For your convenience, we will post this notice and comments we
receive on the TTB Web site. We may omit voluminous attachments or
material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the
full comment will be available in the TTB Library. To access the online
copy of this notice and the submitted comments, visit https://
www.ttb.gov/alcohol/rules/index.htm. Select the ``View Comments'' link
under this notice number to view the posted comments.

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, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires
no regulatory assessment.

Drafting Information

N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Procedures 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 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows:

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

2. Amend subpart C by adding Sec. 9.------ to read as follows:

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

Sec. 9.------ Rattlesnake Hills.

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Rattlesnake Hills''. For purposes of part 4 of this
chapter, ``Rattlesnake Hills'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved Maps. The eight United States Geological Survey,
1:24,000 scale, topographic maps used to determine the boundaries of
the Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area are titled--
(1) Yakima East Quadrangle, Washington--Yakima Co., 1953,
Photorevised 1985;
(2) Elephant Mountain Quadrangle, Washington--Yakima Co., 1953,
Photorevised 1985;
(3) Granger NW Quadrangle, Washington--Yakima Co., 1965;

[[Page 31401]]

(4) Granger NE Quadrangle, Washington--Yakima Co., 1964;
(5) Sunnyside Quadrangle, Washington--Yakima Co., 1965,
Photorevised 1978;
(6) Granger Quadrangle, Washington--Yakima Co., 1965;
(7) Toppenish Quadrangle, Washington--Yakima Co., 1958,
Photorevised 1985; and
(8) Wapato Quadrangle, Washington--Yakima Co., 1958, Photorevised
1985.
(c) Boundary. The Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area is located in
Yakima County, Washington. The area's boundaries are defined as
follows--
(1) The point of beginning is on the Yakima East map at the point
where a line drawn straight east from the west end of the Wapato Dam on
the Yakima River intersects Interstate Highway 82, section 17, T12N/
R19E. This line coincides with the boundary of the Yakima Valley
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.69). From the beginning point, the
Rattlesnake Hills viticultural area boundary line--
(2) Proceeds straight east-southeast, crossing onto the Elephant
Mountain map, to the 2,192-foot peak of Elephant Mountain, section 16,
T12N/R20E; then
(3) Continues straight southeast, crossing over the northeast
corner of the Toppenish map, and continuing onto the Granger NW map, to
the 2,186-foot pinnacle of Zillah Peak, section 32, T12N/R21E; then
(4) Continues straight east-southeast, crossing onto the Granger NE
map, to the 3,021-foot peak of High Top Mountain, section 32, T12N/
R22E; then
(5) Continues straight east-southeast to the 2,879-foot peak in the
northeast quadrant of section 3, T11N/R22E, and continues in the same
direction in a straight line, to the line's intersection with the
120[deg]00' west longitude line in section 1 of T11N/R22E along the
east margin of the Granger NE map; then
(6) Proceeds straight south along the 120[deg]00' west longitude
line to its intersection with a set of power lines in section 24, T11N/
R22E, on the east margin of the Granger NE map; then
(7) Follows the power lines southwest, crossing onto the Sunnyside
map, to their intersection with the Sunnyside Canal, section 8, T10N/
R22E; then
(8) Follows the meandering Sunnyside Canal generally northwest,
crossing over the northeast corner of the Granger map, and continuing
over the Granger NW map, the Toppenish map, and onto the Wapato map to
the canal's intersection with Interstate Highway 82, section 27 west
boundary line, T12N/R19E; then
(9) Follows Interstate Highway 82 northwest for 2.75 miles,
crossing onto the Yakima East map, and returns to the point of
beginning.

Signed: May 17, 2005.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-10880 Filed 5-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.