Establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area and Realignment of the Columbia Valley Viticultural Area, 23156-23162 [2016-09264]
Download as PDF
23156
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify this AD:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska to the extent that it justifies
making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
■
2016–08–16 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment
39–18493; Docket No. FAA–2015–5539;
Directorate Identifier 2015–NE–37–AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD becomes effective May 25, 2016.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A.
Arriel 2E turboshaft engines that have a preTU 193 adjusted high-pressure/low-pressure
(HP/LP) pump and metering valve assembly,
installed.
(d) Reason
This AD was prompted by reports of fuel
flow non-conformities found during
acceptance tests of Arriel 2E hydromechanical metering units. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the constant
delta-pressure (delta-P) diaphragm of the fuel
metering valve, which could result in an
uncommanded in-flight shutdown and
damage to the helicopter.
14:49 Apr 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
(f) Installation Prohibition
After the effective date of this AD, do not
install into any engine any pre-TU 193
adjusted HP/LP pump and metering valve
assembly, nor install onto any helicopter any
engine that has a pre-TU 193 adjusted HP/LP
pump and metering valve assembly.
(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(h) Related Information
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(1) Prior to exceeding 880 operating hours
since new on the adjusted HP/LP pump and
metering valve assembly or within 50
operating hours after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later:
(i) Remove from service the adjusted HP/
LP pump and metering valve assembly and
replace with a part that is eligible for
installation, and
(ii) replace the constant delta-P diaphragm
of the fuel metering valve.
(2) Reserved.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office,
FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to
make your request. You may email your
request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov.
Adoption of the Amendment
§ 39.13
(e) Actions and Compliance
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238–
7183; fax: 781–238–7199; email: kyle.
gustafson@faa.gov.
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency AD 2015–0213, dated October
16, 2015, for more information. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-5539-0002.
(3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. 292 73 2193, Version A, dated
July 16, 2015, can be obtained from
Turbomeca S.A., using the contact
information in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.
(4) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220
Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00;
fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
(5) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
(i) Material Incorporated by Reference
None.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
April 12, 2016.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–09121 Filed 4–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB–2015–0005; T.D. TTB–136;
Ref: Notice Nos. 149 & 149A]
RIN 1513–AC14
Establishment of the Lewis-Clark
Valley Viticultural Area and
Realignment of the Columbia Valley
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 306,650-acre Lewis-Clark
Valley viticultural area in portions of
Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah
Counties in Idaho and Asotin, Garfield,
and Whitman Counties in Washington.
TTB is also modifying the boundary of
the existing Columbia Valley
viticultural area to eliminate a partial
overlap with the Lewis-Clark Valley
viticultural area. The boundary
modification will decrease the size of
the approximately 11,370,320-acre
Columbia Valley viticultural area by
approximately 57,020 acres. The LewisClark Valley viticultural area is not
located within and does not overlap any
other viticultural area. 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: This final rule is effective May
20, 2016.
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:
SUMMARY:
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
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 (dated
December 10, 2013, superseding
Treasury Order 120–01 (Revised),
‘‘Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau,’’ dated January 24, 2003), to the
TTB Administrator to perform the
functions and duties in the
administration and enforcement of these
laws.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
part 4) authorizes TTB to establish
definitive viticultural areas and regulate
the use of their names as appellations of
origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth
standards for the preparation and
submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of
American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines
a viticultural area for American wine as
a delimited grape-growing region having
distinguishing features, as described in
part 9 of the regulations, and a name
and a delineated boundary, as
established in part 9 of the regulations.
These designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality,
reputation, or other characteristic of a
wine made from grapes grown in an area
to the wine’s geographic origin. The
establishment of AVAs allows vintners
to describe more accurately the origin of
their wines to consumers and helps
consumers to identify wines they may
purchase. Establishment of an AVA is
neither an approval nor an endorsement
by TTB of the wine produced in that
area.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines
the procedure for proposing an AVA
and provides that any interested party
may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as an AVA. Section 9.12
of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12)
prescribes standards for petitions for the
establishment or modification of AVAs.
Petitions to establish an AVA must
include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the
proposed AVA boundary is nationally
or locally known by the AVA name
specified in the petition;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:49 Apr 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
• An explanation of the basis for
defining the boundary of the proposed
AVA;
• A narrative description of the
features of the proposed AVA affecting
viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation,
that make the proposed AVA distinctive
and distinguish it from adjacent areas
outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States
Geological Survey (USGS) map(s)
showing the location of the proposed
AVA, with the boundary of the
proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon;
and
• A detailed narrative description of
the proposed AVA boundary based on
USGS map markings.
Lewis-Clark Valley Petition
TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan
Busacca, a licensed geologist and
founder of Vinitas Consultants, LLC, on
behalf of the Palouse-Lewis Clark Valley
Wine Alliance and the Clearwater
Economic Development Association.
The petition proposed to establish the
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and modify the
boundary of the existing Columbia
Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.74). There are 3
wineries and approximately 16
commercially producing vineyards
covering more than 81 acres within the
proposed AVA. According to the
petition, an additional 50 acres of grapes
are expected to be planted within the
next few years.
The distinguishing features of the
proposed Lewis-Clark AVA include its
topography, climate, native vegetation,
and soils. The proposed AVA is located
at the confluence of the Snake and
Clearwater Rivers. The topography of
the proposed AVA consists primarily of
deep, V-notched canyons, low plateaus,
and bench lands formed by the two
rivers. Almost none of the proposed
AVA consists of broad floodplains
typically associated with valley floors,
which are susceptible to cold-air
pooling that can damage new growth
and delay fruit maturation. Elevations
within the proposed AVA are below 600
meters (approximately 1,970 feet).
According to the petition, within the
region of proposed AVA, elevations
above 600 meters are generally too cold
to support reliable ripening of the
varietals of Vitis vinifera (V. vinifera)
grapes that are grown within the
proposed AVA, and winter freezes can
be hard enough to kill dormant vines.
By contrast, the regions surrounding the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA to
the east, south, southwest, and west are
steep, rugged mountains with elevations
ranging from approximately 2,000 feet
to over 6,300 feet. To the north of the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23157
proposed AVA are the gently rolling
hills of the Palouse high prairie, where
the elevations can reach approximately
2,800 feet.
Due to its lower elevations, the
climate of the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley is generally warmer than that of
the surrounding regions and is suitable
for growing a variety of grape varietals,
including Cabernet Sauvignon,
Chardonnay, Merlot, and Cabernet
Franc. The warm temperatures of the
proposed AVA have earned the region
the nickname ‘‘banana belt of the Pacific
Northwest.’’ Growing degree day (GDD)
accumulations within the proposed
AVA range from 2,613 to 3,036. GDD
accumulations in the surrounding
regions are all below 2,000, which is too
low for the consistent, successful
ripening of most varietals of V. vinifera
grapes.
Low shrubs and perennial grasses that
have deep masses of fine roots
constitute the native vegetation of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The
decomposition of these native grasses
and their root mats has contributed to
the formation of nutrient-rich soils
within the proposed AVA. The soils are
high in organic materials that promote
healthy vine growth. The majority of
these soils are classified as Mollisols
soils. The Palouse region to the north of
the proposed AVA has similar native
grasses, but most of the land is used for
growing wheat, which is better suited to
the cooler climate of the Palouse. To the
east, south, and west of the proposed
AVA, conifer trees comprise most of the
native vegetation. The understories of
these forested regions are covered with
pine needle litter instead of perennial
grasses. The pine needle litter remains
on the surface, so the organic material
released by the decomposition of the
needles does not mix as deeply into the
soil as the material released by decaying
grass root mats. As a result, the soils of
forested regions are not as high in
organic material and nutrients as the
soils within the proposed AVA.
Additionally, the soils to the east, south,
and west of the proposed AVA are
classified as Andisols soils, which are
comprised primarily of ash and other
volcanic materials and contain only
small amounts of organic material.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 149 in the
Federal Register on April 14, 2015 (80
FR 19902), proposing to establish the
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. In the
document, TTB summarized the
evidence from the petition regarding the
name, boundary, and distinguishing
features for the proposed AVA. The
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
23158
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
document also compared the
distinguishing features of the proposed
AVA to the surrounding areas. In Notice
No. 149, TTB solicited comments on the
accuracy of the name, boundary, and
other required information submitted in
support of the petition. In addition, TTB
solicited comments on whether the
information provided in the petition
sufficiently demonstrated that the
distinguishing features of the portion of
the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
that would overlap the established
Columbia Valley AVA are so different
from those of the established AVA that
the overlapping region should be
removed from the established AVA and
placed entirely within the proposed
AVA. The comment period originally
closed on June 15, 2015.
In response to Notice No. 149, TTB
received 37 comments during the
original comment period, 36 of which
unequivocally support the
establishment of the proposed LewisClark AVA, with several commenters
citing its distinct topography, climate,
and soils. Many of the commenters also
stated their belief that the proposed
AVA would encourage economic growth
in the Lewiston-Clarkston region.
Commenters included local vineyard
and winery owners; a member of the
Lewiston, Idaho City Council; Valley
Vision, a local non-profit economic
development corporation;
representatives of the Clearwater
Economic Development Association;
representatives of the Port of Lewiston
and the Port of Clarkston, Washington;
the Idaho Wine Commission; the Dean
for Community Programs at Lewis-Clark
State College; the Nez Perce County,
Idaho Planning and Building
Department; and a licensed geologist/
hydrologist.
Eleven of the supporting comments
also specifically support removing the
overlapping region of the proposed
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA from the
Columbia Valley AVA. However, only
four of these comments (comments 13,
20, 21, and 36) offer specific reasons for
supporting the boundary modification.
One commenter (comment 13) reiterated
the petition’s claim that the different
geology of the overlapping region
created a topography of bench lands,
low plateaus, and steep canyon sides
that are distinct from the plains of the
Columbia Valley AVA. Another
commenter (comment 20) stated that the
climate of the overlapping region and
the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
are both ‘‘more distinctly affected by the
interior mountains on the eastern border
of the proposed AVA and the soils are
distinctly affected by the decomposed
granites and basalt substrates that were
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:49 Apr 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
deposited through centuries of alluvial
outwash. . . .’’ The third commenter
(comment 21) stated that the
overlapping region and the proposed
AVA were ‘‘not ravaged by the Missoula
Floods as was most of the Columbia
Valley.’’ The fourth commenter
(comment 36) stated that his experience
growing grapes in the proposed AVA
supports the petition’s claims that the
climate of the proposed AVA has a
longer growing season and different
soils than the Columbia Valley AVA.
The commenter also agreed with the
petition that the canyons of the
proposed AVA and the overlapping
region are ‘‘in stark contrast to the
shallow and wide basins created by the
Columbia River in the Columbia Valley
AVA.’’
Proposed AVA Boundary Expansion
While supporting establishment of the
proposed Lewis-Clark AVA, one
commenter proposed expanding its
boundary to include an area of higher
elevations to the northeast of the
proposed AVA. This acreage is referred
to in this section of the final rule as the
‘‘proposed expansion area’’ for the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The
commenter states he plans to develop a
vineyard within the proposed expansion
area at approximately 2,800 feet in
elevation (see comment 34). The
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is
limited to elevations of 600 meters
(approximately 1,960 feet) and under.
Arguing that viticulture is feasible at the
higher elevations of the Lewis-Clark
Valley, the commenter provided climate
data from a station within the proposed
expansion area for 2012–2014. While
noting that the GDD accumulations
within his proposed expansion area are
lower than those within the proposed
AVA, the commenter stated they are
higher than those found in Moscow,
Idaho, which is located to the north of
the proposed AVA. Climate data from
Moscow was included in the proposed
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA petition. The
commenter believes, therefore, that his
data shows the climate in his proposed
expansion area is more similar to the
climate within the proposed LewisClark AVA than the climate of the
nearby regions north of the proposed
AVA, including Moscow, Idaho.
The commenter also claimed that
precipitation amounts within the
proposed expansion area are similar to
those within the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA, although he did not
provide any non-anecdotal evidence to
support his claim. Finally, the
commenter states that although the soils
in the proposed expansion area are
Andisols soils, ‘‘there is no reason to
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
consider this [soil type] any less suitable
for viticulture’’ than the Mollisols soils
of the proposed AVA.
TTB has reviewed the commenter’s
claims and supporting evidence and has
decided not to include the proposed
expansion area within the proposed
AVA for two reasons. First, TTB notes
that the commenter states that the
property owner is planning to plant a
vineyard, which does not indicate that
viticulture exists within the proposed
expansion area. TTB regulations require
that viticulture be present within an
area proposed to be added to an AVA.
See 27 CFR 9.12(c). Therefore, the
proposed expansion area cannot be
added to the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA because no evidence has
been provided to show that viticulture
currently takes place in the proposed
expansion area.
Secondly, TTB has determined that
the proposed expansion area does not
share the same climate and soils as the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and
would not be included in the proposed
AVA even if viticulture was taking place
currently. With respect to climate
conditions, the GDD accumulations
provided by the commenter ranged from
1,984 to 2,150, which is a significantly
lower range from the 2,613–3,036 range
found within the proposed AVA. Some
grape varietals may grow successfully in
regions that have the range of GDD
accumulations found in the proposed
expansion area. However, because the
GDD accumulations are significantly
lower within the proposed expansion
area, TTB believes that the grapes would
be growing under different climatic
conditions than are found within the
proposed AVA. Although the
commenter claims that climate research
and projections suggest that
temperatures within the proposed
expansion area may eventually become
as warm as those within the proposed
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, TTB’s
determinations concerning the
establishment or expansion of AVAs are
based on currently available climate
data.
Regarding the soils of the proposed
expansion area, the commenter states
that they are Andisols soils, which are
composed largely of volcanic material.
However, the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA’s soils are primarily
Mollisols soils formed from decaying
grasses and their roots. Although
Andisols soils may be suitable for
viticulture, the nutrients and minerals
found in volcanic soils differ from those
found in Mollisols soils and thus would
create different growing conditions for
grapevines.
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, due to both a lack of
current viticulture and shared
distinguishing features in the proposed
expansion area, TTB has determined
that it will not expand the proposed
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA to include the
proposed expansion area described in
comment 34.
Opposition to Proposed Columbia
Valley AVA Boundary Realignment
TTB received one comment that
supports the establishment of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA but
opposes the proposed realignment of the
Columbia Valley AVA (comment 35).
The commenter, the owner of a vineyard
within the proposed realignment area,
stated that he believes his continued
inclusion in the Columbia Valley AVA
would be beneficial to his business and,
therefore, he does not want his vineyard
property to be removed from that AVA.
Instead, the commenter stated that TTB
should allow the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley to partially overlap the Columbia
Valley because ‘‘the geology, soils and
climate of the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA are quite similar to those of
the Columbia Valley and mostly lay
within the elevations affected by the
Missoula floods.’’ The commenter did
not provide any evidence to support his
claim.
Because the proposed realignment of
the Columbia Valley could potentially
affect the business practices of wine
industry members within the proposed
realignment area, TTB published Notice
No. 149A in the Federal Register on
October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65670) to
reopen the comment period for an
additional 30 days. In Notice No. 149A,
TTB asked for comments on whether the
evidence provided in the petition to
establish the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA and to modify the boundary
of the Columbia Valley AVA adequately
demonstrates that the characteristics of
the proposed realignment area are more
similar to those of the rest of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA than
to the distinguishing features of the
Columbia Valley AVA. The reopened
comment period closed November 27,
2015.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Comments Received During the
Reopened Comment Period
During the reopened comment period,
TTB received six additional comments
on Notice No. 149. All six comments
supported the proposed realignment of
the Columbia Valley AVA. Two of the
comments supported the proposed
realignment but provided no additional
evidence. The remaining four comments
(comments 39, 40, 41, and 42) provided
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:49 Apr 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
substantive evidence to support the
proposed realignment.
Comment 39 was submitted by Dr.
Wade Wolfe, who described himself as
one of the contributors to the original
Columbia Valley AVA petition. Dr.
Wolfe states that defining the original
‘‘east boundary of the Columbia Valley
was especially problematic’’ due to that
region’s cold temperatures, the lack of
irrigation infrastructure for vineyards,
and the use of the herbicide 2,4–D in the
wheat fields of the Palouse. All of these
factors, Dr. Wolfe states, limit the future
of viticulture in the far eastern portion
of the Columbia Valley AVA. In spite of
these limiting factors, the decision was
made to end the Columbia Valley at the
Washington-Idaho border. Dr. Wolfe
states his belief that a more appropriate
eastern boundary would have been ‘‘a
location near the Columbia and Garfield
County line about 30 miles west of
Pullman, WA.’’ At this point, the Snake
River Valley narrows to very steep
slopes, and elevations rise to over 2,000
feet, making commercial viticulture
unlikely. Dr. Wolfe further stated that
the narrow canyon continues along the
Snake River until the river ‘‘intersects
with SR 12 just west of Clarkston,’’
where the river valley opens up again.
This intersection is along the northern
border of the proposed realignment area.
Dr. Wolfe asserts that the narrow
portion of the Snake River creates a
logical separation between the valley
system of the Columbia Valley AVA and
the valley system of the proposed
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
Dr. Wolfe also states that the valley
system of the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA, including the proposed
realignment area, is further
differentiated from the valley system of
the Columbia Valley AVA by its
separate rain shadow. Marine moisture
is blocked from entering the Columbia
Valley AVA by the Cascade Mountains.
By contrast, the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA is in the rain shadow of the
Blue Mountains and extensions of the
Rocky Mountains. This different rain
shadow, according to Dr. Wolfe,
‘‘redefines the valley drainage of this
section of the Snake River and when
combined with the Clearwater River
drainage, justifies a separate valley AVA
designation.’’
Comment 40 was submitted by a
licensed geologist/hydrologist. The
commenter states that while the
Columbia Valley AVA and the proposed
realignment area were both affected by
repeated ‘‘Ice Age outbursts’’ from Lake
Missoula, the effects of the floods were
significantly different in both regions.
The commenter states that the floods
were backed up behind the Wallula Gap
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23159
‘‘when twice as much floodwater
entered the gap than could actually pass
through. This hydraulic dam also
temporarily reversed the flow of the
Snake River to near Lewiston.’’ As a
result of the build-up of water behind
the Wallula Gap, ‘‘thick accumulations
of sediment were deposited toward the
center of the backflooded Walla Walla
and Yakima Valleys,’’ within the current
Columbia Valley AVA.
The commenter also states that the
proposed realignment area was affected
by the Bonneville Flood, which did not
extend farther into the Columbia Valley
AVA. The Bonneville Flood deposited
‘‘sediments (soils) of a different
character and composition’’ into the
region of the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA and the proposed
realignment area, including soils
derived from eroded ‘‘older
sedimentary, metamorphic, and
plutonic rocks of the North American
craton.’’ Finally, the commenter states
that due to the ‘‘higher relief of the
canyonlands within the Lewis-Clark
Valley,’’ the soils of the proposed AVA
and the proposed realignment area
contain a higher percentage of ‘‘talus
and slopewash shed off the steep
canyon walls.’’ The commenter claims
that these types of deposits are not
common within the majority of the
Columbia Valley AVA, which contains
‘‘broad, low-relief basins.’’
Comment 41 is from a self-described
local wine consumer. The comment
largely summarizes the evidence
provided in the petition to establish the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and
realign the boundary of the Columbia
Valley AVA. The commenter states that
the proposed realignment area should
be removed from the Columbia Valley
AVA because ‘‘from a statistical
perspective,’’ the vineyards within the
proposed realignment area ‘‘would
represent an outlier.’’ He explains, ‘‘If
one were to view the Columbia Valley
AVA as a map scatter diagram, the vast
majority of vineyards are located in the
Interstate-82 corridor between Walla
Walla and Yakima, WA.’’
Approximately 100 miles separate the
nearest Columbia Valley AVA vineyard
from the nearest vineyard in the
proposed realignment area, the
commenter claims. Based on the lack of
vineyards between Interstate 82 and the
proposed realignment area, the
commenter believes that the current
boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA
extends too far east, and the
southeastern Columbia Valley AVA
boundary should be modified to place
the proposed realignment area solely in
the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
23160
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Comment 42 was submitted by Dr.
Alan Busacca, who submitted the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
petition. Dr. Busacca reiterated Dr.
Wolfe’s statement from comment 39 that
the point where the Snake River
narrows forms a logical division
between the Columbia Valley AVA and
the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
Dr. Busacca further reiterates that the
topography of the proposed realignment
area and the proposed AVA, which is
described as a ‘‘unique, almost bowllike set of plateaus and benches,’’ is
distinctly different from the topography
of the Columbia Valley AVA. Dr.
Busacca also states that if the climate,
topography, and geology of the
proposed realignment area are similar to
the Columbia Valley AVA, as the
opposing commenter claims, then the
soils would also be similar, since those
three features affect the formation of
soil. However, Dr. Busacca states that of
the 80 soils found within both the
proposed AVA and the proposed
realignment area, fewer than 8 also
occur in the main grape-growing regions
of the Columbia Valley AVA. Therefore,
Dr. Busacca claims that the small
number of shared soils demonstrates
that the proposed realignment area does
not share similar topographic, geologic,
and climatic characteristics with the
Columbia Valley AVA.
Finally, Dr. Busacca addresses the
opposing commenter’s statement that
the proposed realignment area and the
Columbia Valley AVA were both
affected by the Missoula Floods. Dr.
Busacca says that while the floodwaters
did reach the proposed AVA, the waters
had travelled almost 100 miles upstream
along the Snake River, against the flow
of the river. As a result, within the
proposed AVA, the floods ‘‘caused
almost no erosion, left little sediment
behind, and thus did not today create
more than a few tens of acres of unique
terroir on small patched [sic] of flat land
just above river level.’’ By contrast,
within the Columbia Valley AVA, the
floods created the ‘‘scabland’’ regions
and built up large deposits of ‘‘gravel,
sand and silt up to hundreds of feet
deep. . . . A whisper and a whimper of
such effects totaling a hundred acres or
two are all that these floods caused in
the Lewiston-Clarkston area.’’
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition
and the 43 comments in total received
in response to Notices No. 149 and No.
149A, TTB finds that the evidence
provided by the petitioner and the
commenters supports the establishment
of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the
realignment of the boundary of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:49 Apr 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
Columbia Valley AVA, in portions of
Washington and Idaho. The realignment
is in accordance with TTB’s
determination that the canyon-andbench topography and Mollisols soils of
the realignment area are more similar to
the features of the Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA than to the broad, rolling
floodplains and Aridisols soils of the
Columbia Valley AVA. Therefore, TTB
is removing the realignment area from
the Columbia Valley AVA and placing
it entirely within the Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA, as described in Notice No. 149.
These determinations are made in
accordance with the authority of the
FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, as well
as parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations,
and are effective 30 days from the
publication date of this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of the
boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA and the modification of the
boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA
in the regulatory text published at the
end of this final rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required
maps, and they are listed below in the
regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits
any label reference on a wine that
indicates or implies an origin other than
the wine’s true place of origin. For a
wine to be labeled with an AVA name
or with a brand name that includes an
AVA name, at least 85 percent of the
wine must be derived from grapes
grown within the area represented by
that name, and the wine must meet the
other conditions listed in 27 CFR
4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for
labeling with an AVA name and that
name appears in the brand name, then
the label is not in compliance and the
bottler must change the brand name and
obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the AVA name appears in
another reference on the label in a
misleading manner, the bottler must
obtain approval of a new label. Different
rules apply if a wine has a brand name
containing an AVA name that was used
as a brand name on a label approved
before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR
4.39(i)(2) for details.
With the establishment of this AVA,
its name, ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley,’’ is
recognized as a name of viticultural
significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the
TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The
text of the regulation clarifies this point.
Consequently, wine bottlers using the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
name ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ in a brand
name, including a trademark, or in
another label reference as to the origin
of the wine, must ensure that the
product is eligible to use the AVA name
as an appellation of origin.
Transition Period
Once this final rule to establish the
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify
the boundary of the Columbia Valley
AVA becomes effective, a transition rule
will apply to labels for wines produced
from grapes grown in the portion of the
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA that was
formerly within the Columbia Valley
AVA. A label containing the words
‘‘Columbia Valley’’ in the brand name or
as an appellation of origin may be used
on such wine bottled for up to two years
from the effective date of this final rule,
provided that such label was approved
prior to the effective date of this final
rule and that the wine conforms to the
standards for use of the label set forth
in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in effect prior
to the final rule. At the end of this twoyear transition period, if a wine is no
longer eligible for labeling with the
Columbia Valley name (e.g., less than 85
percent of the wine is derived from
grapes grown in the Columbia Valley, as
modified in this final rule), then a label
containing the words ‘‘Columbia
Valley’’ in the brand name or as an
appellation of origin would not be
permitted on the bottle. TTB believes
that the two-year period should provide
adequate time to use up any existing
labels. This transition period is
described in the regulatory text for the
Columbia Valley AVA published at the
end of this final rule. In this final rule,
TTB has added regulatory text to clarify
that wine eligible for labeling with the
Columbia Valley name under the new
boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA
will not be affected by the establishment
of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA or by
this two-year transition period.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulation imposes no new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of an AVA name
would be the result of a proprietor’s
efforts and consumer acceptance of
wines from that area. Therefore, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 12866 of
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
September 30, 1993. Therefore, no
regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations
and Rulings Division drafted this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter
I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Amend § 9.74 by revising
paragraphs (b) and (c)(38) through (40)
and adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
■
§ 9.74
Columbia Valley.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Approved maps. The approved
maps for determining the boundary of
the Columbia Valley viticultural area are
nine 1:250,000 scale U.S.G.S. maps and
one 1:100,000 (metric) scale U.S.G.S.
map. They are entitled:
(1) Concrete, Washington, U.S.;
British Columbia, Canada, edition of
1955, limited revision 1963;
(2) Okanogan, Washington, edition of
1954, limited revision 1963;
(3) Pendleton, Oregon, Washington,
edition of 1954, revised 1973;
(4) Pullman, Washington, Idaho,
edition of 1953, revised 1974;
(5) Clarkston, Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, 1:100,000 (metric) scale, edition
of 1981;
(6) Ritzville, Washington, edition of
1953, limited revision 1965;
(7) The Dalles, Oregon, Washington,
edition of 1953, revised 1971;
(8) Walla Walla, Washington, Oregon,
edition of 1953, limited revision 1963;
(9) Wenatchee, Washington, edition of
1957, revised 1971; and
(10) Yakima, Washington, edition of
1958, revised 1971.
(c) * * *
(38) Then south following the
Washington-Idaho State boundary on
the 1:100,000 (metric) scale Clarkston,
Washington, Idaho, Oregon map to the
600-meter elevation contour along the
eastern boundary of section 9,
R. 46 E./T. 11 N.; and then generally
west following the meandering 600-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:49 Apr 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
meter contour to the eastern boundary
of section 17, R. 45E./T. 11N.; then
south following the eastern boundary of
section 17 to the southern boundary of
section 17; and then west following the
southern boundaries of sections 17 and
18 to the Asotin-Garfield county line in
section 19, R. 45E./T. 11N.;
(39) Then south following the
Garfield-Asotin county line to the 600meter elevation contour; then following
generally west and south in a
counterclockwise direction along the
meandering 600-meter elevation contour
to Charley Creek in section 4, R. 44 E./
T. 9 N.; and then west following Charley
Creek on to the township line between
R. 42 E. and R. 43 E.;
(40) Then north following the
township line between R. 42 E. and R.
43 E. on the 1:250,000 scale ‘‘Pullman,
Washington, Idaho’’ map to Washington
Highway 128 at Peola;
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Transition period. A label
containing the words ‘‘Columbia
Valley’’ in the brand name or as an
appellation of origin approved prior to
May 20, 2016 may be used on wine
bottled before May 21, 2018 if the wine
conforms to the standards for use of the
label set forth in § 4.25 or § 4.39(i) of
this chapter in effect prior to May 20,
2016.
■ 3. Add § 9.256 to read as follows:
§ 9.256
Lewis-Clark Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is ‘‘LewisClark Valley’’. For purposes of part 4 of
this chapter, ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ is a
term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The three United
States Geographical Survey (USGS)
1:100,000 (metric) scale topographic
maps used to determine the boundary of
the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area
are titled:
(1) Clarkston, Wash.-Idaho-Oregon,
1981;
(2) Orofino, Idaho-Washington, 1981;
and
(3) Potlatch, Idaho, 1981.
(c) Boundary. The Lewis-Clark Valley
viticultural area is located in Nez Perce,
Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties,
Idaho, and Asotin, Garfield, and
Whitman Counties, Washington. The
boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley
viticultural area is as follows:
(1) The beginning point is located on
the Clarkston map in Washington State
along the Garfield-Asotin County line at
the southwest corner of section 18,
T11N/R45E. From the beginning point,
proceed east along the southern
boundary line of section 18, crossing
over the Snake River, and continue
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23161
along the southern boundary line of
section 17, T11N/R45E, to the southeast
corner of section 17; then
(2) Proceed north along the eastern
boundary line of section 17 to the 600meter elevation contour; then
(3) Proceed generally east-northeast
along the meandering 600-meter
elevation contour, crossing into Idaho
and onto the Orofino map, then
continue to follow the elevation contour
in an overall clockwise direction,
crossing back and forth between the
Orofino and Clarkston maps and finally
onto the Potlatch map, and then
continuing to follow the 600-meter
elevation contour in a clockwise
direction to the elevation contour’s
intersection with the southern boundary
line of section 1, T37N/R1W, on the
Potlatch map, north of the Nez Perce
Indian Reservation boundary and west
of the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork
of the Clearwater River) in Clearwater
County, Idaho; then
(4) Cross the Dworshak Reservoir
(North Fork of the Clearwater River) by
proceeding east along the southern
boundary line of section 1, T37N/R1E,
to the southeastern corner of section 1;
then by proceeding north along the
eastern boundary line of section 1 to the
southwest corner of section 6, T37N/
R2E; and then by proceeding east along
the southern boundary line of section 6
to the 600-meter elevation contour; then
(5) Proceed generally east initially,
then generally south, and then generally
southeast along the meandering 600meter elevation contour, crossing onto
the Orofino map, and then continuing to
follow the elevation contour in an
overall clockwise direction, crossing
back and forth between the Orofino and
Potlatch maps, to the eastern boundary
of section 13, T35N/R2E, on the Orofino
map in Clearwater County, Idaho; then
(6) Proceed south along the eastern
boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, to
the southeastern corner of section 13,
T35N/R2E, northeast of Lolo Creek; then
(7) Proceed west along the southern
boundary line of section 13, T35N/R2E,
to the Clearwater-Idaho County line in
the middle of Lolo Creek; then
(8) Proceed generally west-northwest
along the Clearwater-Idaho County line
(concurrent with Lolo Creek) to the
Lewis County line at the confluence of
Lolo Creek and the Clearwater River;
then
(9) Proceed generally south along the
Lewis-Idaho County line (concurrent
with the Clearwater River) to the
northern boundary line of section 23,
T35N/R2E; then
(10) Proceed west along the northern
boundary line of section 23, T35N/R2E,
to the 600-meter elevation contour; then
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
23162
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
(11) Proceed generally northwest
along the meandering 600-meter
elevation contour, crossing onto the
Potlatch map and then back onto the
Orofino map and continuing generally
southwest along the 600-meter elevation
contour to the common T32N/T31N
township boundary line along the
southern boundary line of section 35,
T32N/R5W, south of Chimney Creek (a
tributary of the Snake River) in Nez
Perce County, Idaho; then
(12) Proceed west along the common
T32N/T31N township boundary line,
crossing Chimney Creek, to the IdahoWashington State line (concurrent with
the Nez Perce-Asotin County line) at the
center of the Snake River; then
(13) Proceed generally southeast along
the Idaho-Washington State line in the
Snake River to the northern boundary
line of section 29, T31N/R5W; then
(14) Proceed west along the northern
boundary line of section 29, T31N/R5W,
to the 600-meter elevation contour,
northeast of Lime Hill in Asotin County,
Washington; then
(15) Proceed generally west and then
generally south-southwest along the
meandering 600-meter elevation contour
to the southern boundary line of section
25, T7N/R46E; then
(16) Proceed west along the southern
boundary lines of section 25 and 26,
crossing onto the Clarkston map, and
continuing along the southern boundary
lines of section 26 to the 600-meter
elevation contour west of Joseph Creek;
then
(17) Proceed southeast along the
meandering 600-meter elevation contour
to the western boundary line of section
34, T7N/R46E; then
(18) Proceed north along the western
boundary lines of sections 34 and 27,
T7N/R46E, crossing over the Grande
Ronde River, to the 600-meter elevation
contour; then
(19) Proceed generally northeast along
the meandering 600-meter elevation
contour and continue along the 600meter elevation contour in a clockwise
direction, crossing back and forth
between the Clarkston and Orofino
maps, until, on the Clarkston map, the
600-meter elevation line intersects the
Garfield-Asotin County line for the third
time along the western boundary of
section 19, T11N/R45E; and then
(20) Proceed north along the GarfieldAsotin County line, returning to the
beginning point.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:49 Apr 19, 2016
Jkt 238001
Signed: March 28, 2016.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: April 15, 2016.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016–09264 Filed 4–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 551
Semipostal Stamp Program
Postal ServiceTM.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This final rule revises the
provisions governing the Postal
Service’s discretionary Semipostal
Stamp Program to simplify and expedite
the process for selecting causes for
semipostal stamps, and facilitate the
issuance of five such stamps over a 10year period. It also removes certain
restrictions on the commencement date
for the Postal Service’s discretionary
Semipostal Stamp Program, and clarifies
how many semipostal stamps issued
under that program may be on sale at
any one time.
DATES: This rule is effective on: May 20,
2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori
Mazzone, Manager, Stamp Products &
Exhibitions, 202–268–6711,
lori.l.mazzone@usps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Publication of Proposed Rule
The Semipostal Authorization Act,
Public Law 106–253, grants the Postal
Service discretionary authority to issue
and sell semipostal stamps to advance
such causes as it considers to be ‘‘in the
national public interest and
appropriate.’’ See 39 U.S.C. 416(b). On
March 3, 2016, the Postal Service
published and requested comments
concerning a detailed revision of the
rules concerning the discretionary
Semipostal Stamp Program, as set forth
in 39 CFR part 551 (81 FR 11164). As
summarized below, these changes are
designed to facilitate the smooth and
efficient operation of the discretionary
Semipostal Stamp Program.
Revisions
The revision of § 551.3 streamlines
and simplifies the selection of causes to
receive funds raised through the sale of
semipostal stamps, and states the Postal
Service’s intention to issue five such
stamps over the statutory ten-year
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
period. It also notifies the public that no
further consideration will be given to
previously submitted proposals but that
such proposals may be resubmitted
under the revised regulations. The
paragraph relating to proposals
regarding the same subject and
proposals for the sharing of funds
between two agencies is edited for
clarity and moved to § 551.4, concerning
submission requirements and criteria,
where it more appropriately belongs.
The revision of § 551.4 sharpens the
submission requirements and, among
other things, makes Postal Service
employees ineligible to submit
proposals for semipostal stamps.
The revision of § 551.5(a) removes
certain restrictions on the
commencement date of the
discretionary Semipostal Stamp
Program. Under current regulations, the
10-year period for the discretionary
semipostal stamp program would
commence on a date determined by the
Office of Stamp Services, but that date
must be after the sales period of the
Breast Cancer Research stamp (BCRS) is
concluded. Most recently, Public Law
114–99 (December 11, 2015) extended
that sales period to December 31, 2019.
As revised, the 10-year period will
commence on a date determined by the
Office of Stamp Services, but the date
need not be after the BCRS sale period
concludes.
The revision of § 551.5(b) clarifies that
although only one semipostal stamp
under the discretionary Semipostal
Stamp Program under 39 U.S.C. 416 (a
‘‘discretionary program semipostal
stamp’’) will be offered for sale at any
one time, other semipostal stamps
required to be issued by Congress (such
as the BCRS) may be on sale when a
discretionary program semipostal stamp
is on sale. Current regulations state that
the Postal Service will offer only one
semipostal stamp for sale at any given
time during the 10-year period (not
specifying whether it is a discretionary
program semipostal stamp or a
semipostal stamp required by Congress).
As revised, the one-at-a-time limitation
on the sale of semipostal stamps applies
only to discretionary program
semipostal stamps.
To minimize confusion regarding
applicable postage rates, the revision of
§ 551.6 specifies that for purposes of
calculating the price of a semipostal, the
First-Class Mail® single-piece stamped
first-ounce rate of postage will be
considered ‘‘the rate of postage that
would otherwise regularly apply.’’
Comments and Response
The Postal Service received three
comments in response to the proposed
E:\FR\FM\20APR1.SGM
20APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23156-23162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09264]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2015-0005; T.D. TTB-136; Ref: Notice Nos. 149 & 149A]
RIN 1513-AC14
Establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area and
Realignment of the Columbia 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 approximately 306,650-acre Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area in
portions of Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties in Idaho
and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman Counties in Washington. TTB is also
modifying the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley viticultural
area to eliminate a partial overlap with the Lewis-Clark Valley
viticultural area. The boundary modification will decrease the size of
the approximately 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley viticultural area by
approximately 57,020 acres. The Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is
not located within and does not overlap any other viticultural area.
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: This final rule is effective May 20, 2016.
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
[[Page 23157]]
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 (dated December 10, 2013, superseding
Treasury Order 120-01 (Revised), ``Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau,'' dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform
the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these
laws.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9
of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as
established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow
vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or
other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the
wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2))
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes
standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs.
Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
A narrative description of the features of the proposed
AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Lewis-Clark Valley Petition
TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan Busacca, a licensed geologist
and founder of Vinitas Consultants, LLC, on behalf of the Palouse-Lewis
Clark Valley Wine Alliance and the Clearwater Economic Development
Association. The petition proposed to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA and modify the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley AVA (27 CFR
9.74). There are 3 wineries and approximately 16 commercially producing
vineyards covering more than 81 acres within the proposed AVA.
According to the petition, an additional 50 acres of grapes are
expected to be planted within the next few years.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA include
its topography, climate, native vegetation, and soils. The proposed AVA
is located at the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. The
topography of the proposed AVA consists primarily of deep, V-notched
canyons, low plateaus, and bench lands formed by the two rivers. Almost
none of the proposed AVA consists of broad floodplains typically
associated with valley floors, which are susceptible to cold-air
pooling that can damage new growth and delay fruit maturation.
Elevations within the proposed AVA are below 600 meters (approximately
1,970 feet). According to the petition, within the region of proposed
AVA, elevations above 600 meters are generally too cold to support
reliable ripening of the varietals of Vitis vinifera (V. vinifera)
grapes that are grown within the proposed AVA, and winter freezes can
be hard enough to kill dormant vines. By contrast, the regions
surrounding the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA to the east, south,
southwest, and west are steep, rugged mountains with elevations ranging
from approximately 2,000 feet to over 6,300 feet. To the north of the
proposed AVA are the gently rolling hills of the Palouse high prairie,
where the elevations can reach approximately 2,800 feet.
Due to its lower elevations, the climate of the proposed Lewis-
Clark Valley is generally warmer than that of the surrounding regions
and is suitable for growing a variety of grape varietals, including
Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Merlot, and Cabernet Franc. The warm
temperatures of the proposed AVA have earned the region the nickname
``banana belt of the Pacific Northwest.'' Growing degree day (GDD)
accumulations within the proposed AVA range from 2,613 to 3,036. GDD
accumulations in the surrounding regions are all below 2,000, which is
too low for the consistent, successful ripening of most varietals of V.
vinifera grapes.
Low shrubs and perennial grasses that have deep masses of fine
roots constitute the native vegetation of the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA. The decomposition of these native grasses and their root
mats has contributed to the formation of nutrient-rich soils within the
proposed AVA. The soils are high in organic materials that promote
healthy vine growth. The majority of these soils are classified as
Mollisols soils. The Palouse region to the north of the proposed AVA
has similar native grasses, but most of the land is used for growing
wheat, which is better suited to the cooler climate of the Palouse. To
the east, south, and west of the proposed AVA, conifer trees comprise
most of the native vegetation. The understories of these forested
regions are covered with pine needle litter instead of perennial
grasses. The pine needle litter remains on the surface, so the organic
material released by the decomposition of the needles does not mix as
deeply into the soil as the material released by decaying grass root
mats. As a result, the soils of forested regions are not as high in
organic material and nutrients as the soils within the proposed AVA.
Additionally, the soils to the east, south, and west of the proposed
AVA are classified as Andisols soils, which are comprised primarily of
ash and other volcanic materials and contain only small amounts of
organic material.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 149 in the Federal Register on April 14,
2015 (80 FR 19902), proposing to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
In the document, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition
regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the
proposed AVA. The
[[Page 23158]]
document also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA
to the surrounding areas. In Notice No. 149, TTB solicited comments on
the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information
submitted in support of the petition. In addition, TTB solicited
comments on whether the information provided in the petition
sufficiently demonstrated that the distinguishing features of the
portion of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA that would overlap the
established Columbia Valley AVA are so different from those of the
established AVA that the overlapping region should be removed from the
established AVA and placed entirely within the proposed AVA. The
comment period originally closed on June 15, 2015.
In response to Notice No. 149, TTB received 37 comments during the
original comment period, 36 of which unequivocally support the
establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA, with several commenters
citing its distinct topography, climate, and soils. Many of the
commenters also stated their belief that the proposed AVA would
encourage economic growth in the Lewiston-Clarkston region. Commenters
included local vineyard and winery owners; a member of the Lewiston,
Idaho City Council; Valley Vision, a local non-profit economic
development corporation; representatives of the Clearwater Economic
Development Association; representatives of the Port of Lewiston and
the Port of Clarkston, Washington; the Idaho Wine Commission; the Dean
for Community Programs at Lewis-Clark State College; the Nez Perce
County, Idaho Planning and Building Department; and a licensed
geologist/hydrologist.
Eleven of the supporting comments also specifically support
removing the overlapping region of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
from the Columbia Valley AVA. However, only four of these comments
(comments 13, 20, 21, and 36) offer specific reasons for supporting the
boundary modification. One commenter (comment 13) reiterated the
petition's claim that the different geology of the overlapping region
created a topography of bench lands, low plateaus, and steep canyon
sides that are distinct from the plains of the Columbia Valley AVA.
Another commenter (comment 20) stated that the climate of the
overlapping region and the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA are both
``more distinctly affected by the interior mountains on the eastern
border of the proposed AVA and the soils are distinctly affected by the
decomposed granites and basalt substrates that were deposited through
centuries of alluvial outwash. . . .'' The third commenter (comment 21)
stated that the overlapping region and the proposed AVA were ``not
ravaged by the Missoula Floods as was most of the Columbia Valley.''
The fourth commenter (comment 36) stated that his experience growing
grapes in the proposed AVA supports the petition's claims that the
climate of the proposed AVA has a longer growing season and different
soils than the Columbia Valley AVA. The commenter also agreed with the
petition that the canyons of the proposed AVA and the overlapping
region are ``in stark contrast to the shallow and wide basins created
by the Columbia River in the Columbia Valley AVA.''
Proposed AVA Boundary Expansion
While supporting establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA, one
commenter proposed expanding its boundary to include an area of higher
elevations to the northeast of the proposed AVA. This acreage is
referred to in this section of the final rule as the ``proposed
expansion area'' for the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The commenter
states he plans to develop a vineyard within the proposed expansion
area at approximately 2,800 feet in elevation (see comment 34). The
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is limited to elevations of 600 meters
(approximately 1,960 feet) and under. Arguing that viticulture is
feasible at the higher elevations of the Lewis-Clark Valley, the
commenter provided climate data from a station within the proposed
expansion area for 2012-2014. While noting that the GDD accumulations
within his proposed expansion area are lower than those within the
proposed AVA, the commenter stated they are higher than those found in
Moscow, Idaho, which is located to the north of the proposed AVA.
Climate data from Moscow was included in the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA petition. The commenter believes, therefore, that his data
shows the climate in his proposed expansion area is more similar to the
climate within the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA than the climate of the
nearby regions north of the proposed AVA, including Moscow, Idaho.
The commenter also claimed that precipitation amounts within the
proposed expansion area are similar to those within the proposed Lewis-
Clark Valley AVA, although he did not provide any non-anecdotal
evidence to support his claim. Finally, the commenter states that
although the soils in the proposed expansion area are Andisols soils,
``there is no reason to consider this [soil type] any less suitable for
viticulture'' than the Mollisols soils of the proposed AVA.
TTB has reviewed the commenter's claims and supporting evidence and
has decided not to include the proposed expansion area within the
proposed AVA for two reasons. First, TTB notes that the commenter
states that the property owner is planning to plant a vineyard, which
does not indicate that viticulture exists within the proposed expansion
area. TTB regulations require that viticulture be present within an
area proposed to be added to an AVA. See 27 CFR 9.12(c). Therefore, the
proposed expansion area cannot be added to the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA because no evidence has been provided to show that
viticulture currently takes place in the proposed expansion area.
Secondly, TTB has determined that the proposed expansion area does
not share the same climate and soils as the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA and would not be included in the proposed AVA even if viticulture
was taking place currently. With respect to climate conditions, the GDD
accumulations provided by the commenter ranged from 1,984 to 2,150,
which is a significantly lower range from the 2,613-3,036 range found
within the proposed AVA. Some grape varietals may grow successfully in
regions that have the range of GDD accumulations found in the proposed
expansion area. However, because the GDD accumulations are
significantly lower within the proposed expansion area, TTB believes
that the grapes would be growing under different climatic conditions
than are found within the proposed AVA. Although the commenter claims
that climate research and projections suggest that temperatures within
the proposed expansion area may eventually become as warm as those
within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, TTB's determinations
concerning the establishment or expansion of AVAs are based on
currently available climate data.
Regarding the soils of the proposed expansion area, the commenter
states that they are Andisols soils, which are composed largely of
volcanic material. However, the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA's soils
are primarily Mollisols soils formed from decaying grasses and their
roots. Although Andisols soils may be suitable for viticulture, the
nutrients and minerals found in volcanic soils differ from those found
in Mollisols soils and thus would create different growing conditions
for grapevines.
[[Page 23159]]
Therefore, due to both a lack of current viticulture and shared
distinguishing features in the proposed expansion area, TTB has
determined that it will not expand the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
to include the proposed expansion area described in comment 34.
Opposition to Proposed Columbia Valley AVA Boundary Realignment
TTB received one comment that supports the establishment of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA but opposes the proposed realignment of
the Columbia Valley AVA (comment 35). The commenter, the owner of a
vineyard within the proposed realignment area, stated that he believes
his continued inclusion in the Columbia Valley AVA would be beneficial
to his business and, therefore, he does not want his vineyard property
to be removed from that AVA. Instead, the commenter stated that TTB
should allow the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley to partially overlap the
Columbia Valley because ``the geology, soils and climate of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA are quite similar to those of the
Columbia Valley and mostly lay within the elevations affected by the
Missoula floods.'' The commenter did not provide any evidence to
support his claim.
Because the proposed realignment of the Columbia Valley could
potentially affect the business practices of wine industry members
within the proposed realignment area, TTB published Notice No. 149A in
the Federal Register on October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65670) to reopen the
comment period for an additional 30 days. In Notice No. 149A, TTB asked
for comments on whether the evidence provided in the petition to
establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify the
boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA adequately demonstrates that the
characteristics of the proposed realignment area are more similar to
those of the rest of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA than to the
distinguishing features of the Columbia Valley AVA. The reopened
comment period closed November 27, 2015.
Comments Received During the Reopened Comment Period
During the reopened comment period, TTB received six additional
comments on Notice No. 149. All six comments supported the proposed
realignment of the Columbia Valley AVA. Two of the comments supported
the proposed realignment but provided no additional evidence. The
remaining four comments (comments 39, 40, 41, and 42) provided
substantive evidence to support the proposed realignment.
Comment 39 was submitted by Dr. Wade Wolfe, who described himself
as one of the contributors to the original Columbia Valley AVA
petition. Dr. Wolfe states that defining the original ``east boundary
of the Columbia Valley was especially problematic'' due to that
region's cold temperatures, the lack of irrigation infrastructure for
vineyards, and the use of the herbicide 2,4-D in the wheat fields of
the Palouse. All of these factors, Dr. Wolfe states, limit the future
of viticulture in the far eastern portion of the Columbia Valley AVA.
In spite of these limiting factors, the decision was made to end the
Columbia Valley at the Washington-Idaho border. Dr. Wolfe states his
belief that a more appropriate eastern boundary would have been ``a
location near the Columbia and Garfield County line about 30 miles west
of Pullman, WA.'' At this point, the Snake River Valley narrows to very
steep slopes, and elevations rise to over 2,000 feet, making commercial
viticulture unlikely. Dr. Wolfe further stated that the narrow canyon
continues along the Snake River until the river ``intersects with SR 12
just west of Clarkston,'' where the river valley opens up again. This
intersection is along the northern border of the proposed realignment
area. Dr. Wolfe asserts that the narrow portion of the Snake River
creates a logical separation between the valley system of the Columbia
Valley AVA and the valley system of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA.
Dr. Wolfe also states that the valley system of the proposed Lewis-
Clark Valley AVA, including the proposed realignment area, is further
differentiated from the valley system of the Columbia Valley AVA by its
separate rain shadow. Marine moisture is blocked from entering the
Columbia Valley AVA by the Cascade Mountains. By contrast, the proposed
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is in the rain shadow of the Blue Mountains and
extensions of the Rocky Mountains. This different rain shadow,
according to Dr. Wolfe, ``redefines the valley drainage of this section
of the Snake River and when combined with the Clearwater River
drainage, justifies a separate valley AVA designation.''
Comment 40 was submitted by a licensed geologist/hydrologist. The
commenter states that while the Columbia Valley AVA and the proposed
realignment area were both affected by repeated ``Ice Age outbursts''
from Lake Missoula, the effects of the floods were significantly
different in both regions. The commenter states that the floods were
backed up behind the Wallula Gap ``when twice as much floodwater
entered the gap than could actually pass through. This hydraulic dam
also temporarily reversed the flow of the Snake River to near
Lewiston.'' As a result of the build-up of water behind the Wallula
Gap, ``thick accumulations of sediment were deposited toward the center
of the backflooded Walla Walla and Yakima Valleys,'' within the current
Columbia Valley AVA.
The commenter also states that the proposed realignment area was
affected by the Bonneville Flood, which did not extend farther into the
Columbia Valley AVA. The Bonneville Flood deposited ``sediments (soils)
of a different character and composition'' into the region of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the proposed realignment area,
including soils derived from eroded ``older sedimentary, metamorphic,
and plutonic rocks of the North American craton.'' Finally, the
commenter states that due to the ``higher relief of the canyonlands
within the Lewis-Clark Valley,'' the soils of the proposed AVA and the
proposed realignment area contain a higher percentage of ``talus and
slopewash shed off the steep canyon walls.'' The commenter claims that
these types of deposits are not common within the majority of the
Columbia Valley AVA, which contains ``broad, low-relief basins.''
Comment 41 is from a self-described local wine consumer. The
comment largely summarizes the evidence provided in the petition to
establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and realign the boundary
of the Columbia Valley AVA. The commenter states that the proposed
realignment area should be removed from the Columbia Valley AVA because
``from a statistical perspective,'' the vineyards within the proposed
realignment area ``would represent an outlier.'' He explains, ``If one
were to view the Columbia Valley AVA as a map scatter diagram, the vast
majority of vineyards are located in the Interstate-82 corridor between
Walla Walla and Yakima, WA.'' Approximately 100 miles separate the
nearest Columbia Valley AVA vineyard from the nearest vineyard in the
proposed realignment area, the commenter claims. Based on the lack of
vineyards between Interstate 82 and the proposed realignment area, the
commenter believes that the current boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA
extends too far east, and the southeastern Columbia Valley AVA boundary
should be modified to place the proposed realignment area solely in the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
[[Page 23160]]
Comment 42 was submitted by Dr. Alan Busacca, who submitted the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA petition. Dr. Busacca reiterated Dr.
Wolfe's statement from comment 39 that the point where the Snake River
narrows forms a logical division between the Columbia Valley AVA and
the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. Dr. Busacca further reiterates
that the topography of the proposed realignment area and the proposed
AVA, which is described as a ``unique, almost bowl-like set of plateaus
and benches,'' is distinctly different from the topography of the
Columbia Valley AVA. Dr. Busacca also states that if the climate,
topography, and geology of the proposed realignment area are similar to
the Columbia Valley AVA, as the opposing commenter claims, then the
soils would also be similar, since those three features affect the
formation of soil. However, Dr. Busacca states that of the 80 soils
found within both the proposed AVA and the proposed realignment area,
fewer than 8 also occur in the main grape-growing regions of the
Columbia Valley AVA. Therefore, Dr. Busacca claims that the small
number of shared soils demonstrates that the proposed realignment area
does not share similar topographic, geologic, and climatic
characteristics with the Columbia Valley AVA.
Finally, Dr. Busacca addresses the opposing commenter's statement
that the proposed realignment area and the Columbia Valley AVA were
both affected by the Missoula Floods. Dr. Busacca says that while the
floodwaters did reach the proposed AVA, the waters had travelled almost
100 miles upstream along the Snake River, against the flow of the
river. As a result, within the proposed AVA, the floods ``caused almost
no erosion, left little sediment behind, and thus did not today create
more than a few tens of acres of unique terroir on small patched [sic]
of flat land just above river level.'' By contrast, within the Columbia
Valley AVA, the floods created the ``scabland'' regions and built up
large deposits of ``gravel, sand and silt up to hundreds of feet deep.
. . . A whisper and a whimper of such effects totaling a hundred acres
or two are all that these floods caused in the Lewiston-Clarkston
area.''
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition and the 43 comments in total
received in response to Notices No. 149 and No. 149A, TTB finds that
the evidence provided by the petitioner and the commenters supports the
establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the realignment of the
boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA, in portions of Washington and
Idaho. The realignment is in accordance with TTB's determination that
the canyon-and-bench topography and Mollisols soils of the realignment
area are more similar to the features of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
than to the broad, rolling floodplains and Aridisols soils of the
Columbia Valley AVA. Therefore, TTB is removing the realignment area
from the Columbia Valley AVA and placing it entirely within the Lewis-
Clark Valley AVA, as described in Notice No. 149. These determinations
are made in accordance with the authority of the FAA Act, section
1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as well as parts 4 and 9
of the TTB regulations, and are effective 30 days from the publication
date of this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of the boundary of the Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA and the modification of the boundary of the Columbia Valley
AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a
brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine
must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that
name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR
4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name
and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another
reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler must obtain
approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand
name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label
approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
With the establishment of this AVA, its name, ``Lewis-Clark
Valley,'' is recognized as a name of viticultural significance under
Sec. 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text
of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers
using the name ``Lewis-Clark Valley'' in a brand name, including a
trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine,
must ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an
appellation of origin.
Transition Period
Once this final rule to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to
modify the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA becomes effective, a
transition rule will apply to labels for wines produced from grapes
grown in the portion of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA that was formerly
within the Columbia Valley AVA. A label containing the words ``Columbia
Valley'' in the brand name or as an appellation of origin may be used
on such wine bottled for up to two years from the effective date of
this final rule, provided that such label was approved prior to the
effective date of this final rule and that the wine conforms to the
standards for use of the label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in
effect prior to the final rule. At the end of this two-year transition
period, if a wine is no longer eligible for labeling with the Columbia
Valley name (e.g., less than 85 percent of the wine is derived from
grapes grown in the Columbia Valley, as modified in this final rule),
then a label containing the words ``Columbia Valley'' in the brand name
or as an appellation of origin would not be permitted on the bottle.
TTB believes that the two-year period should provide adequate time to
use up any existing labels. This transition period is described in the
regulatory text for the Columbia Valley AVA published at the end of
this final rule. In this final rule, TTB has added regulatory text to
clarify that wine eligible for labeling with the Columbia Valley name
under the new boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA will not be affected
by the establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA or by this two-year
transition period.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA
name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer
acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of
[[Page 23161]]
September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this final rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27,
chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
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. Amend Sec. 9.74 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(38) through (40)
and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 9.74 Columbia Valley.
* * * * *
(b) Approved maps. The approved maps for determining the boundary
of the Columbia Valley viticultural area are nine 1:250,000 scale
U.S.G.S. maps and one 1:100,000 (metric) scale U.S.G.S. map. They are
entitled:
(1) Concrete, Washington, U.S.; British Columbia, Canada, edition
of 1955, limited revision 1963;
(2) Okanogan, Washington, edition of 1954, limited revision 1963;
(3) Pendleton, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1954, revised 1973;
(4) Pullman, Washington, Idaho, edition of 1953, revised 1974;
(5) Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 1:100,000 (metric) scale,
edition of 1981;
(6) Ritzville, Washington, edition of 1953, limited revision 1965;
(7) The Dalles, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1953, revised 1971;
(8) Walla Walla, Washington, Oregon, edition of 1953, limited
revision 1963;
(9) Wenatchee, Washington, edition of 1957, revised 1971; and
(10) Yakima, Washington, edition of 1958, revised 1971.
(c) * * *
(38) Then south following the Washington-Idaho State boundary on
the 1:100,000 (metric) scale Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon map
to the 600-meter elevation contour along the eastern boundary of
section 9,
R. 46 E./T. 11 N.; and then generally west following the meandering
600-meter contour to the eastern boundary of section 17, R. 45E./T.
11N.; then south following the eastern boundary of section 17 to the
southern boundary of section 17; and then west following the southern
boundaries of sections 17 and 18 to the Asotin-Garfield county line in
section 19, R. 45E./T. 11N.;
(39) Then south following the Garfield-Asotin county line to the
600-meter elevation contour; then following generally west and south in
a counterclockwise direction along the meandering 600-meter elevation
contour to Charley Creek in section 4, R. 44 E./T. 9 N.; and then west
following Charley Creek on to the township line between R. 42 E. and R.
43 E.;
(40) Then north following the township line between R. 42 E. and R.
43 E. on the 1:250,000 scale ``Pullman, Washington, Idaho'' map to
Washington Highway 128 at Peola;
* * * * *
(d) Transition period. A label containing the words ``Columbia
Valley'' in the brand name or as an appellation of origin approved
prior to May 20, 2016 may be used on wine bottled before May 21, 2018
if the wine conforms to the standards for use of the label set forth in
Sec. 4.25 or Sec. 4.39(i) of this chapter in effect prior to May 20,
2016.
0
3. Add Sec. 9.256 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.256 Lewis-Clark Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Lewis-Clark Valley''. For purposes of part 4 of this
chapter, ``Lewis-Clark Valley'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The three United States Geographical Survey
(USGS) 1:100,000 (metric) scale topographic maps used to determine the
boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area are titled:
(1) Clarkston, Wash.-Idaho-Oregon, 1981;
(2) Orofino, Idaho-Washington, 1981; and
(3) Potlatch, Idaho, 1981.
(c) Boundary. The Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is located
in Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties, Idaho, and Asotin,
Garfield, and Whitman Counties, Washington. The boundary of the Lewis-
Clark Valley viticultural area is as follows:
(1) The beginning point is located on the Clarkston map in
Washington State along the Garfield-Asotin County line at the southwest
corner of section 18, T11N/R45E. From the beginning point, proceed east
along the southern boundary line of section 18, crossing over the Snake
River, and continue along the southern boundary line of section 17,
T11N/R45E, to the southeast corner of section 17; then
(2) Proceed north along the eastern boundary line of section 17 to
the 600-meter elevation contour; then
(3) Proceed generally east-northeast along the meandering 600-meter
elevation contour, crossing into Idaho and onto the Orofino map, then
continue to follow the elevation contour in an overall clockwise
direction, crossing back and forth between the Orofino and Clarkston
maps and finally onto the Potlatch map, and then continuing to follow
the 600-meter elevation contour in a clockwise direction to the
elevation contour's intersection with the southern boundary line of
section 1, T37N/R1W, on the Potlatch map, north of the Nez Perce Indian
Reservation boundary and west of the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of
the Clearwater River) in Clearwater County, Idaho; then
(4) Cross the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of the Clearwater
River) by proceeding east along the southern boundary line of section
1, T37N/R1E, to the southeastern corner of section 1; then by
proceeding north along the eastern boundary line of section 1 to the
southwest corner of section 6, T37N/R2E; and then by proceeding east
along the southern boundary line of section 6 to the 600-meter
elevation contour; then
(5) Proceed generally east initially, then generally south, and
then generally southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation
contour, crossing onto the Orofino map, and then continuing to follow
the elevation contour in an overall clockwise direction, crossing back
and forth between the Orofino and Potlatch maps, to the eastern
boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, on the Orofino map in Clearwater
County, Idaho; then
(6) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of section 13, T35N/
R2E, to the southeastern corner of section 13, T35N/R2E, northeast of
Lolo Creek; then
(7) Proceed west along the southern boundary line of section 13,
T35N/R2E, to the Clearwater-Idaho County line in the middle of Lolo
Creek; then
(8) Proceed generally west-northwest along the Clearwater-Idaho
County line (concurrent with Lolo Creek) to the Lewis County line at
the confluence of Lolo Creek and the Clearwater River; then
(9) Proceed generally south along the Lewis-Idaho County line
(concurrent with the Clearwater River) to the northern boundary line of
section 23, T35N/R2E; then
(10) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 23,
T35N/R2E, to the 600-meter elevation contour; then
[[Page 23162]]
(11) Proceed generally northwest along the meandering 600-meter
elevation contour, crossing onto the Potlatch map and then back onto
the Orofino map and continuing generally southwest along the 600-meter
elevation contour to the common T32N/T31N township boundary line along
the southern boundary line of section 35, T32N/R5W, south of Chimney
Creek (a tributary of the Snake River) in Nez Perce County, Idaho; then
(12) Proceed west along the common T32N/T31N township boundary
line, crossing Chimney Creek, to the Idaho-Washington State line
(concurrent with the Nez Perce-Asotin County line) at the center of the
Snake River; then
(13) Proceed generally southeast along the Idaho-Washington State
line in the Snake River to the northern boundary line of section 29,
T31N/R5W; then
(14) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 29,
T31N/R5W, to the 600-meter elevation contour, northeast of Lime Hill in
Asotin County, Washington; then
(15) Proceed generally west and then generally south-southwest
along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to the southern
boundary line of section 25, T7N/R46E; then
(16) Proceed west along the southern boundary lines of section 25
and 26, crossing onto the Clarkston map, and continuing along the
southern boundary lines of section 26 to the 600-meter elevation
contour west of Joseph Creek; then
(17) Proceed southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation
contour to the western boundary line of section 34, T7N/R46E; then
(18) Proceed north along the western boundary lines of sections 34
and 27, T7N/R46E, crossing over the Grande Ronde River, to the 600-
meter elevation contour; then
(19) Proceed generally northeast along the meandering 600-meter
elevation contour and continue along the 600-meter elevation contour in
a clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Clarkston
and Orofino maps, until, on the Clarkston map, the 600-meter elevation
line intersects the Garfield-Asotin County line for the third time
along the western boundary of section 19, T11N/R45E; and then
(20) Proceed north along the Garfield-Asotin County line, returning
to the beginning point.
Signed: March 28, 2016.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: April 15, 2016.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-09264 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P