Establishment of the Inwood Valley Viticultural Area, 56541-56544 [2012-22595]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
contain up to 25 percent wine from
other countries. This, they state,
misleads the consumer and places U.S.
growers at a disadvantage. Both
organizations note that California law
requires a wine claiming a California
appellation of origin to consist wholly
of California wine, and CAWG notes
that Oregon law requires that all grapes
used in the production of a wine with
an Oregon appellation be grown in
Oregon. Both organizations urge TTB to
act on a current petition submitted by
CAWG and other grape growers
associations which proposes that wines
bearing American appellations of origin
must contain only U.S. wine.
The comment from the winery that
does not support the proposed rule
states that the proposal will dilute the
vintage date standard and confuse
consumers, stating, ‘‘It makes a huge
difference if the wine is from an AVA
specifically, or if it would just say
American. * * * Most people who are
not avid wine drinkers, identify with
AVAs. Most wine drinkers also identify
with a year date. Let’s not make more
confusion to the general public than
what is necessary. Let’s keep the
standards high.’’
TTB Finding
After careful review of the comments
discussed above, TTB has determined
that it is appropriate to adopt without
change the proposed regulatory
amendments contained in Notice No.
122. The majority of commenters
expressed support for the proposed rule.
While TTB understands the winery’s
argument that applying a vintage date to
a large area could undermine the value
of a vintage date statement, TTB
believes that vintage dates can provide
useful, truthful information to
consumers. TTB considers the concerns
expressed by CAWG and the Lodi
District Grape Growers Association
about the percentage of foreign wine
permitted in wine labeled with the
American appellation of origin to be a
separate issue outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
These amendments merely provide
optional, additional flexibility in wine
labeling decisions. Accordingly, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
56541
Executive Order 12866
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it
requires no regulatory assessment.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
Drafting Information
[Docket No. TTB–2011–0011; T.D. TTB–107;
Ref: Notice No. 125]
Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this
document.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 4
Administrative practice and
procedure, Advertising, Customs duties
and inspection, Imports, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Trade
practices, Wine.
27 CFR Part 9
RIN 1513–AB83
Establishment of the Inwood Valley
Viticultural Area
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury Decision.
AGENCY:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise
noted.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the
28,441-acre ‘‘Inwood Valley’’
viticultural area in Shasta County,
California. TTB designates viticultural
areas to allow vintners to better describe
the origin of their wines and to allow
consumers to better identify wines they
may purchase.
DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2012.
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:
§ 4.27
Background on Viticultural Areas
Amendments to the Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB amends 27 CFR, chapter
I, part 4 as set forth below:
PART 4—LABELING AND
ADVERTISING OF WINE
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR
part 4 continues to read as follows:
■
[Amended]
2. Section 4.27 is amended:
■ a. In the second sentence of the
introductory text of paragraph (a), by
removing the words ‘‘other than a
country (which does not qualify for
vintage labeling)’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the
words ‘‘country or’’.
■
§ 4.34
[Amended]
3. Section 4.34(b)(5) is amended by
removing the last sentence.
■
Signed: April 30, 2012.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: May 14, 2012.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012–22598 Filed 9–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY:
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 January 21, 2003, 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
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
56542
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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 and lists the
approved American viticultural areas.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 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 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27
CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for
petitions for the establishment or
modification of American viticultural
areas. Such petitions must include the
following:
• Evidence that the area within the
proposed viticultural area boundary is
nationally or locally known by the
viticultural area name specified in the
petition;
• An explanation of the basis for
defining the boundary of the proposed
viticultural area;
• A narrative description of the
features of the proposed viticultural area
that affect viticulture, such as climate,
geology, soils, physical features, and
elevation, that make it distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas
outside the viticultural area boundary;
• A copy of the appropriate United
States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s)
showing the location of the proposed
viticultural area, with the boundary of
the proposed viticultural area clearly
drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of
the proposed viticultural area boundary
based on USGS map markings.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
Inwood Valley Petition
TTB received a petition from
consulting geographer Patrick Shabram,
on behalf of himself and Anselmo
Vineyards of Inwood Valley, California,
proposing the establishment of the
‘‘Inwood Valley’’ American viticultural
area. The original petition proposed a
viticultural area containing
approximately 32,647 acres, with 60
acres on 4 commercially-producing
vineyards and 14 acres planned for
further viticultural development. After
reviewing the original petition, TTB
suggested to the petitioner that the
boundary of the proposed viticultural
area be modified in order to conform to
the requirements of § 9.12 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 9.12), which
requires a petitioned-for viticultural
area to be an area in which viticulture
exists and to contain features
distinguishable from the surrounding
area. Acting on this request, Patrick
Shabram, the consulting geographer
who submitted the original petition on
behalf of Anselmo Vineyards, submitted
an addendum to the petition, proposing
a modified boundary that used lines
drawn between identifiable features on
the USGS maps to approximate the
limits of the distinguishing soil types of
the proposed viticultural area and to
exclude portions of the proposed
viticultural area that do not contain
viticulture. The proposed modifications
reduced the size of the proposed
viticultural area to 28,298 acres and
were not intended to affect any grape
growers located within the originally
petitioned-for viticultural area.
The proposed Inwood Valley
viticultural area, located in rural,
southern Shasta County in north-central
California, does not overlap, or
otherwise involve, any existing or
proposed viticultural areas.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 125 in the
Federal Register on December 5, 2011
(76 FR 75830), proposing to establish
the Inwood Valley viticultural area,
based on the modified boundary as
discussed above. 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 geology,
topography, climate, native vegetation,
and soil. The notice also included a
comparison of the distinguishing
features to the surrounding area. For a
description of the evidence relating to
the name, boundary, and distinguishing
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
features of the proposed viticultural
area, see Notice No. 125.
In Notice No. 125, TTB solicited
comments on the accuracy of the name,
boundary, climactic, and other required
information submitted in support of the
petition. The comment period closed on
February 3, 2012.
During the comment period, TTB
received four comments in response to
Notice No. 125. The commenters
included two self-identified wine
industry members and two commenters
who did not list any affiliation. Three of
the comments support the establishment
of the proposed Inwood Valley
viticultural area. TTB also received one
comment outside of the comment
period, as discussed later in this section.
One of the three supporting
comments, comment 2, also states that
the main purpose of the American
viticultural area program is not to
provide more information to consumers,
but instead to boost the local economy
and provide vintners with a more
competitive advantage in the
marketplace. TTB notes that its
regulations regarding the approval of
American viticultural areas and their
use on labels are intended to ensure that
such statements provide adequate
information about the identity and
origin of the product and are not
misleading. Whether or not, and to what
extent, there is any economic benefit
from the approval of a viticultural area
is not a factor that TTB considers in
determining whether or not to approve
a petition for a viticultural area.
The fourth comment objects to the
proposed ‘‘Inwood Valley’’ name,
stating that people do not correlate the
name ‘‘Inwood’’ with Northern
California, and that the word ‘‘valley’’ is
‘‘nongeographical.’’ Rather, the
comment contends that the word
‘‘valley’’ is often used as a marketing
tool to promote the idea of nature and
fresh produce, and that making the
name ‘‘Inwood Valley’’ viticulturally
significant would prohibit wine bottlers
outside the proposed viticultural area
that currently use the name ‘‘Inwood’’
on their labels from later adding
‘‘valley’’ to their labels or brand name
if they believed it would be in their best
marketing interest to do so. The
comment cites Inwood Estates Vineyard
and Winery in Dallas, Texas, as an
example of a winery that would be
prohibited from adding ‘‘valley’’ to its
name if ‘‘Inwood Valley’’ becomes a
term of viticultural significance. The
commenter did not claim any
association with Inwood Estates
Vineyard and Winery and did not
comment on any other aspect of the
petition.
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Section 9.12(a)(1) of the TTB
regulations requires that the area within
the proposed viticultural area ‘‘must be
nationally or locally known by the name
specified in the petition.’’ As stated in
Notice No. 125, TTB has determined the
name evidence submitted by the
petitioner shows that the region within
the proposed viticultural area is known
locally as ‘‘Inwood Valley.’’ The
evidence provided with the petition
indicates that local residents and
businesses within the proposed
viticultural area use the name ‘‘Inwood
Valley,’’ and that the name ‘‘Inwood
Valley’’ accurately describes the region
in which the proposed viticultural area
is located. TTB further adds that
‘‘Inwood,’’ by itself, is not recognized as
having viticultural significance, and that
the word ‘‘valley’’ is commonly used in
American viticultural area names; there
are 40 American viticultural area names
containing the word ‘‘valley’’ in
California alone.
TTB is not aware of any current label
holder that will be adversely affected by
the establishment of the Inwood Valley
viticultural area and the designation of
the full name ‘‘Inwood Valley’’ as a term
of viticultural significance. Such
establishment also will not affect any
current or future label holders using the
word ‘‘Inwood,’’ standing alone, on
wine labels. For example, the ability of
Inwood Estates Vineyard and Winery to
use ‘‘Inwood Estates’’ or ‘‘Inwood
Winery’’ on a wine label would not be
affected by the publication of this final
rule. With regard to the restriction on
the use of the term ‘‘Inwood Valley’’ on
future labels, TTB specifically noted in
Notice No. 125 that any current or
future label holder wishing to use the
term on a wine label must ensure that
the wine meets the eligibility
requirements for the appellation.
After the close of the comment period,
TTB received a comment from a
vineyard owner requesting that the
southern boundary of the proposed
viticultural area be modified in order to
include his vineyard. The commenter
stated that his vineyard was within the
boundary of the viticultural area as
originally proposed in the petition, and
that he became aware of the boundary
line modification and the resultant
exclusion of his vineyard only after the
comment period had closed. According
to the vineyard owner, his property is
located immediately adjacent to the
viticultural area boundary proposed in
Notice No. 125 and currently has 2.5
acres of planted vineyards, with 4 more
acres of vineyards planned in the near
future. After being informed of the
commenter’s request, Mr. Shabram sent
a letter to TTB acknowledging that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
exclusion of the vineyard was
inadvertent and stating that the
geographical features of the vineyard are
similar to those of the viticultural area
proposed in Notice No. 125.
TTB notes that, as stated in Notice No.
125, the proposed boundary was based
on marked features on USGS maps that
approximately follow the distinguishing
features of elevation and soil types. TTB
believes a slight modification to the
boundary to include the vineyard at
issue is consistent with the
distinguishing features evidence
submitted with the petition and
discussed in Notice No. 125. Also,
although the comment period had
already closed when the comment was
received, TTB specifically noted in the
proposed rule its interest in comments
relating to the appropriateness of the
proposed boundary.
Accordingly, given the circumstances
of the exclusion of the commenter’s
vineyard from the proposed viticultural
area and the potential impact of the
rulemaking on the commenter, TTB
concludes that the boundary should be
modified so that the additional vineyard
is included within the Inwood Valley
viticultural area. Mr. Shabram provided
TTB with the modifications to the
boundary description based on
markings appearing on the applicable
USGS maps, and the letters from the
vineyard owner and Mr. Shabram are
included in the rulemaking docket. The
boundary modification adds 143 acres
to the Inwood Valley viticultural area,
for a total of 28,441 acres, with
approximately 62.5 acres dedicated to 5
commercially-producing vineyards.
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition
and the comments received, TTB finds
that the evidence provided by the
petitioner supports the establishment of
the 28,441-acre Inwood Valley
viticultural area as proposed in Notice
No. 125 and modified by the alteration
to the boundary description discussed
below. 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 ‘‘Inwood Valley’’
viticultural area in Shasta County,
California, effective 30 days from the
publication date of this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary
description of the viticultural area in the
regulatory text published at the end of
this final rule. Paragraphs (c)(17) and
(18) of the final boundary description of
the viticultural area differ from the
description in the proposed rule,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56543
consistent with the modification of the
southern portion of the boundary line
discussed above. In addition, TTB
clarified the wording of other boundary
descriptions within paragraph (c) but
the location of the boundary as
described in those sections did not
change from that proposed in Notice No.
125.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required
maps, and TTB lists them below in the
regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits
any label reference on a wine that
indicates or implies an origin other than
the wine’s true place of origin. With the
establishment of this viticultural area,
its name, ‘‘Inwood Valley,’’ is
recognized as a name of viticultural
significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3).
The text of the new regulation clarifies
this point. Once this final rule becomes
effective, wine bottlers using ‘‘Inwood
Valley’’ 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 name as an
appellation of origin.
For a wine to be labeled with a
viticultural area name or with a brand
name that includes a viticultural area
name or other term identified as being
viticulturally significant in part 9 of the
TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of
the wine must be derived from grapes
grown within the area represented by
that name or other term, and the wine
must meet the other conditions listed in
27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not
eligible for labeling with the viticultural
area name or other viticulturally
significant term and that name or term
appears in the brand name, then the
label is not in compliance and the
bottler must change the brand name and
obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the viticultural area name
or other viticulturally significant term
appears in another reference on the
label in a misleading manner, the bottler
would have to obtain approval of a new
label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a
brand name containing a viticultural
area name or other term of viticultural
significance that was used as a brand
name on a label approved before July 7,
1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulation imposes no new
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
56544
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 178 / Thursday, September 13, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
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 rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it
requires no regulatory assessment.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations
and Rulings Division drafted this notice.
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. Subpart C is amended by adding
§ 9.226 to read as follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 9.226
Inwood Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is
‘‘Inwood Valley’’. For purposes of part
4 of this chapter, ‘‘Inwood Valley’’ is a
term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The five United
States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale
topographic maps used to determine the
boundary of the Inwood Valley
viticultural area are titled:
(1) Clough Gulch, California—Shasta
County, Provisional edition 1985;
(2) Inwood, California—Shasta
County, Provisional edition 1985;
(3) Hagaman Gulch, California—
Shasta County, Provisional edition
1985;
(4) Shingletown, California—Shasta
County, Provisional edition 1985; and
(5) Tuscan Buttes NE., California,
1965, Photoinspected 1976.
(c) Boundary. The Inwood Valley
viticultural area is located in Shasta
County, California. The boundary of the
Inwood Valley viticultural area is as
described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the
Clough Gulch map at BM (Benchmark)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Sep 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
1254.4 located along State Route 44 in
T31N/R2W. From the beginning point,
proceed east-northeasterly in a straight
line approximately 4.1 miles, onto the
Inwood map, to the 1,786-foot elevation
point, section 17, T31N/R1W; then
(2) Proceed east-northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 2.1 miles to
the 2,086-foot elevation point, section
15, T31N/R1W; then
(3) Proceed north-northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 0.7 mile to
the marked 1,648-foot elevation point
(which should be marked as 2,648 feet
based on its two adjacent elevation
lines) on Bear Creek Ridge, section 10,
T31N/R1W; then
(4) Proceed east-northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 0.8 mile to
the 2,952-foot elevation point (located
between two transmission lines), section
11, T31N/R1W; then
(5) Proceed east-northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 1.2 miles to
the 3,042-foot summit of Blue
Mountain, section 1, T31N/R1W; then
(6) Proceed easterly in a straight line
approximately 0.7 mile, crossing over
the R1W/R1E ‘‘Mt. Diablo Meridian’’
line, to the 3,104-foot elevation point,
section 6, T31N/R1E; then
(7) Proceed east-northeasterly in a
straight line approximately 2.2 miles to
the summit of Alamine Peak, section 32,
T32N/R1E; then
(8) Proceed southeasterly in a straight
line approximately 2.1 miles, onto the
Hagaman Gulch map, to Bear Pen
Springs, section 10, T31N/R1E; then
(9) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.8 mile to
the 3,373-foot summit of Chalk
Mountain, section 9, T31N/R1E; then
(10) Proceed south-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 1 mile,
returning to the Inwood map, to 2,756foot elevation point, section 17, T31N/
R1E; then
(11) Proceed south in a straight line
approximately 0.6 mile to the
intersection of that line with an
improved road marked ‘‘Private’’ at the
southern boundary of section 17, T31N/
R1E; then
(12) Proceed south-southwesterly
along that ‘‘Private’’ road approximately
1.6 miles to the marked gate of the
‘‘Private’’ road at the road’s intersection
with unnamed improved and
unimproved roads, section 29, T31N/
R1E; then
(13) Proceed southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 1.6 miles,
onto the Shingletown map, to the
intersection of that line with State Route
44 and an unnamed improved road
(known locally as Ash Creek Road),
section 31, T31N/R1E; then
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(14) Proceed southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 0.2 miles to
the 3,334-foot elevation point, section
31, T31N/R1E; then
(15) Proceed southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 1.5 miles,
crossing over the R1W/R1E ‘‘Mt. Diablo
Meridian’’ line, to the 3,029-foot
elevation point on Shingletown Ridge,
section 1, T30N/R1W; then
(16) Proceed westerly in a straight line
approximately 1.6 miles to the 2,435foot elevation point, section 3, T30N/
R1W; then
(17) Proceed west-southwesterly in a
straight line approximately 1.7 miles to
the 2,065-foot elevation point (southeast
of a marked Borrow Pit), section 8,
T30N/R1W; then
(18) Proceed west-northwesterly in a
straight line approximately 5.2 miles,
onto the Tuscan Buttes NE map, to the
956-foot elevation point near an
unnamed spring in section 33, T31N/
R2W; then
(19) Proceed north in a straight line
approximately 1.7 miles, onto the
Clough Gulch map, to BM 1048.1 on
State Route 44, section 28, T31N/R2W;
then
(20) Proceed east along State Route 44
approximately 1.1 miles, returning to
the beginning point.
Signed: July 26, 2012.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: August 2, 2012.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2012–22595 Filed 9–12–12; 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–2011–0009; T.D. TTB–106;
Ref: Notice Nos. 123 and 123A]
RIN 1513–AB67
Establishment of the Middleburg
Virginia Viticultural Area
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury Decision.
AGENCY:
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the
approximately 198-square mile
‘‘Middleburg Virginia’’ viticultural area
in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties in
northern Virginia. TTB designates
viticultural areas to allow vintners to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM
13SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56541-56544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22595]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2011-0011; T.D. TTB-107; Ref: Notice No. 125]
RIN 1513-AB83
Establishment of the Inwood Valley Viticultural Area
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 28,441-acre ``Inwood Valley'' viticultural area in Shasta County,
California. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to
better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to
better identify wines they may purchase.
DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2012.
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
January 21, 2003, 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
[[Page 56542]]
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 and lists
the approved American 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 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 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 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or
modification of American viticultural areas. Such petitions must
include the following:
Evidence that the area within the proposed viticultural
area boundary is nationally or locally known by the viticultural area
name specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed viticultural area;
A narrative description of the features of the proposed
viticultural area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation, that make it distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the viticultural area
boundary;
A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey
(USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed viticultural area,
with the boundary of the proposed viticultural area clearly drawn
thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed
viticultural area boundary based on USGS map markings.
Inwood Valley Petition
TTB received a petition from consulting geographer Patrick Shabram,
on behalf of himself and Anselmo Vineyards of Inwood Valley,
California, proposing the establishment of the ``Inwood Valley''
American viticultural area. The original petition proposed a
viticultural area containing approximately 32,647 acres, with 60 acres
on 4 commercially-producing vineyards and 14 acres planned for further
viticultural development. After reviewing the original petition, TTB
suggested to the petitioner that the boundary of the proposed
viticultural area be modified in order to conform to the requirements
of Sec. 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12), which requires a
petitioned-for viticultural area to be an area in which viticulture
exists and to contain features distinguishable from the surrounding
area. Acting on this request, Patrick Shabram, the consulting
geographer who submitted the original petition on behalf of Anselmo
Vineyards, submitted an addendum to the petition, proposing a modified
boundary that used lines drawn between identifiable features on the
USGS maps to approximate the limits of the distinguishing soil types of
the proposed viticultural area and to exclude portions of the proposed
viticultural area that do not contain viticulture. The proposed
modifications reduced the size of the proposed viticultural area to
28,298 acres and were not intended to affect any grape growers located
within the originally petitioned-for viticultural area.
The proposed Inwood Valley viticultural area, located in rural,
southern Shasta County in north-central California, does not overlap,
or otherwise involve, any existing or proposed viticultural areas.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 125 in the Federal Register on December 5,
2011 (76 FR 75830), proposing to establish the Inwood Valley
viticultural area, based on the modified boundary as discussed above.
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 geology, topography, climate, native
vegetation, and soil. The notice also included a comparison of the
distinguishing features to the surrounding area. For a description of
the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing
features of the proposed viticultural area, see Notice No. 125.
In Notice No. 125, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the
name, boundary, climactic, and other required information submitted in
support of the petition. The comment period closed on February 3, 2012.
During the comment period, TTB received four comments in response
to Notice No. 125. The commenters included two self-identified wine
industry members and two commenters who did not list any affiliation.
Three of the comments support the establishment of the proposed Inwood
Valley viticultural area. TTB also received one comment outside of the
comment period, as discussed later in this section.
One of the three supporting comments, comment 2, also states that
the main purpose of the American viticultural area program is not to
provide more information to consumers, but instead to boost the local
economy and provide vintners with a more competitive advantage in the
marketplace. TTB notes that its regulations regarding the approval of
American viticultural areas and their use on labels are intended to
ensure that such statements provide adequate information about the
identity and origin of the product and are not misleading. Whether or
not, and to what extent, there is any economic benefit from the
approval of a viticultural area is not a factor that TTB considers in
determining whether or not to approve a petition for a viticultural
area.
The fourth comment objects to the proposed ``Inwood Valley'' name,
stating that people do not correlate the name ``Inwood'' with Northern
California, and that the word ``valley'' is ``nongeographical.''
Rather, the comment contends that the word ``valley'' is often used as
a marketing tool to promote the idea of nature and fresh produce, and
that making the name ``Inwood Valley'' viticulturally significant would
prohibit wine bottlers outside the proposed viticultural area that
currently use the name ``Inwood'' on their labels from later adding
``valley'' to their labels or brand name if they believed it would be
in their best marketing interest to do so. The comment cites Inwood
Estates Vineyard and Winery in Dallas, Texas, as an example of a winery
that would be prohibited from adding ``valley'' to its name if ``Inwood
Valley'' becomes a term of viticultural significance. The commenter did
not claim any association with Inwood Estates Vineyard and Winery and
did not comment on any other aspect of the petition.
[[Page 56543]]
Section 9.12(a)(1) of the TTB regulations requires that the area
within the proposed viticultural area ``must be nationally or locally
known by the name specified in the petition.'' As stated in Notice No.
125, TTB has determined the name evidence submitted by the petitioner
shows that the region within the proposed viticultural area is known
locally as ``Inwood Valley.'' The evidence provided with the petition
indicates that local residents and businesses within the proposed
viticultural area use the name ``Inwood Valley,'' and that the name
``Inwood Valley'' accurately describes the region in which the proposed
viticultural area is located. TTB further adds that ``Inwood,'' by
itself, is not recognized as having viticultural significance, and that
the word ``valley'' is commonly used in American viticultural area
names; there are 40 American viticultural area names containing the
word ``valley'' in California alone.
TTB is not aware of any current label holder that will be adversely
affected by the establishment of the Inwood Valley viticultural area
and the designation of the full name ``Inwood Valley'' as a term of
viticultural significance. Such establishment also will not affect any
current or future label holders using the word ``Inwood,'' standing
alone, on wine labels. For example, the ability of Inwood Estates
Vineyard and Winery to use ``Inwood Estates'' or ``Inwood Winery'' on a
wine label would not be affected by the publication of this final rule.
With regard to the restriction on the use of the term ``Inwood Valley''
on future labels, TTB specifically noted in Notice No. 125 that any
current or future label holder wishing to use the term on a wine label
must ensure that the wine meets the eligibility requirements for the
appellation.
After the close of the comment period, TTB received a comment from
a vineyard owner requesting that the southern boundary of the proposed
viticultural area be modified in order to include his vineyard. The
commenter stated that his vineyard was within the boundary of the
viticultural area as originally proposed in the petition, and that he
became aware of the boundary line modification and the resultant
exclusion of his vineyard only after the comment period had closed.
According to the vineyard owner, his property is located immediately
adjacent to the viticultural area boundary proposed in Notice No. 125
and currently has 2.5 acres of planted vineyards, with 4 more acres of
vineyards planned in the near future. After being informed of the
commenter's request, Mr. Shabram sent a letter to TTB acknowledging
that the exclusion of the vineyard was inadvertent and stating that the
geographical features of the vineyard are similar to those of the
viticultural area proposed in Notice No. 125.
TTB notes that, as stated in Notice No. 125, the proposed boundary
was based on marked features on USGS maps that approximately follow the
distinguishing features of elevation and soil types. TTB believes a
slight modification to the boundary to include the vineyard at issue is
consistent with the distinguishing features evidence submitted with the
petition and discussed in Notice No. 125. Also, although the comment
period had already closed when the comment was received, TTB
specifically noted in the proposed rule its interest in comments
relating to the appropriateness of the proposed boundary.
Accordingly, given the circumstances of the exclusion of the
commenter's vineyard from the proposed viticultural area and the
potential impact of the rulemaking on the commenter, TTB concludes that
the boundary should be modified so that the additional vineyard is
included within the Inwood Valley viticultural area. Mr. Shabram
provided TTB with the modifications to the boundary description based
on markings appearing on the applicable USGS maps, and the letters from
the vineyard owner and Mr. Shabram are included in the rulemaking
docket. The boundary modification adds 143 acres to the Inwood Valley
viticultural area, for a total of 28,441 acres, with approximately 62.5
acres dedicated to 5 commercially-producing vineyards.
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition and the comments received, TTB
finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the
establishment of the 28,441-acre Inwood Valley viticultural area as
proposed in Notice No. 125 and modified by the alteration to the
boundary description discussed below. 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 ``Inwood
Valley'' viticultural area in Shasta County, California, effective 30
days from the publication date of this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary description of the viticultural area in
the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule. Paragraphs
(c)(17) and (18) of the final boundary description of the viticultural
area differ from the description in the proposed rule, consistent with
the modification of the southern portion of the boundary line discussed
above. In addition, TTB clarified the wording of other boundary
descriptions within paragraph (c) but the location of the boundary as
described in those sections did not change from that proposed in Notice
No. 125.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and TTB lists them below
in the regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. With the establishment of this viticultural area, its
name, ``Inwood Valley,'' is recognized as a name of viticultural
significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the new regulation
clarifies this point. Once this final rule becomes effective, wine
bottlers using ``Inwood Valley'' 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 name as an appellation of origin.
For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a
brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term
identified as being viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB
regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from
grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term,
and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR
4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with the
viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term and
that name or term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or
other viticulturally significant term appears in another reference on
the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain
approval of a new label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a
viticultural area name or other term of viticultural significance that
was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See
27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
regulation imposes no new
[[Page 56544]]
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 rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this notice.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.226 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.226 Inwood Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Inwood Valley''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``Inwood Valley'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The five United States Geological Survey
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
Inwood Valley viticultural area are titled:
(1) Clough Gulch, California--Shasta County, Provisional edition
1985;
(2) Inwood, California--Shasta County, Provisional edition 1985;
(3) Hagaman Gulch, California--Shasta County, Provisional edition
1985;
(4) Shingletown, California--Shasta County, Provisional edition
1985; and
(5) Tuscan Buttes NE., California, 1965, Photoinspected 1976.
(c) Boundary. The Inwood Valley viticultural area is located in
Shasta County, California. The boundary of the Inwood Valley
viticultural area is as described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the Clough Gulch map at BM
(Benchmark) 1254.4 located along State Route 44 in T31N/R2W. From the
beginning point, proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line
approximately 4.1 miles, onto the Inwood map, to the 1,786-foot
elevation point, section 17, T31N/R1W; then
(2) Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line approximately 2.1
miles to the 2,086-foot elevation point, section 15, T31N/R1W; then
(3) Proceed north-northeasterly in a straight line approximately
0.7 mile to the marked 1,648-foot elevation point (which should be
marked as 2,648 feet based on its two adjacent elevation lines) on Bear
Creek Ridge, section 10, T31N/R1W; then
(4) Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line approximately 0.8
mile to the 2,952-foot elevation point (located between two
transmission lines), section 11, T31N/R1W; then
(5) Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line approximately 1.2
miles to the 3,042-foot summit of Blue Mountain, section 1, T31N/R1W;
then
(6) Proceed easterly in a straight line approximately 0.7 mile,
crossing over the R1W/R1E ``Mt. Diablo Meridian'' line, to the 3,104-
foot elevation point, section 6, T31N/R1E; then
(7) Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line approximately 2.2
miles to the summit of Alamine Peak, section 32, T32N/R1E; then
(8) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line approximately 2.1
miles, onto the Hagaman Gulch map, to Bear Pen Springs, section 10,
T31N/R1E; then
(9) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line approximately 0.8
mile to the 3,373-foot summit of Chalk Mountain, section 9, T31N/R1E;
then
(10) Proceed south-southwesterly in a straight line approximately 1
mile, returning to the Inwood map, to 2,756-foot elevation point,
section 17, T31N/R1E; then
(11) Proceed south in a straight line approximately 0.6 mile to the
intersection of that line with an improved road marked ``Private'' at
the southern boundary of section 17, T31N/R1E; then
(12) Proceed south-southwesterly along that ``Private'' road
approximately 1.6 miles to the marked gate of the ``Private'' road at
the road's intersection with unnamed improved and unimproved roads,
section 29, T31N/R1E; then
(13) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line approximately 1.6
miles, onto the Shingletown map, to the intersection of that line with
State Route 44 and an unnamed improved road (known locally as Ash Creek
Road), section 31, T31N/R1E; then
(14) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line approximately 0.2
miles to the 3,334-foot elevation point, section 31, T31N/R1E; then
(15) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line approximately 1.5
miles, crossing over the R1W/R1E ``Mt. Diablo Meridian'' line, to the
3,029-foot elevation point on Shingletown Ridge, section 1, T30N/R1W;
then
(16) Proceed westerly in a straight line approximately 1.6 miles to
the 2,435-foot elevation point, section 3, T30N/R1W; then
(17) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line approximately
1.7 miles to the 2,065-foot elevation point (southeast of a marked
Borrow Pit), section 8, T30N/R1W; then
(18) Proceed west-northwesterly in a straight line approximately
5.2 miles, onto the Tuscan Buttes NE map, to the 956-foot elevation
point near an unnamed spring in section 33, T31N/R2W; then
(19) Proceed north in a straight line approximately 1.7 miles, onto
the Clough Gulch map, to BM 1048.1 on State Route 44, section 28, T31N/
R2W; then
(20) Proceed east along State Route 44 approximately 1.1 miles,
returning to the beginning point.
Signed: July 26, 2012.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: August 2, 2012.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2012-22595 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
