Proposed Establishment of the Paulsell Valley Viticultural Area, 37265-37270 [2021-15053]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(8) Proceed northeast, then south,
then easterly along the 1,400-foot
elevation contour, crossing Knapp
Coulee and onto the Chelan map, and
continuing east along the 1,400-foot
elevation contour to its intersection
with the northern boundary of section 1,
T26N/R22E; then
(9) Proceed south-southeasterly in a
straight line, crossing the Columbia
River, to the intersection of the 1,600foot elevation contour and the R22E/
R23E boundary; then
(10) Proceed generally westerly along
the 1,600-foot elevation contour,
crossing over the southeastern corner of
the Winesap map and onto the Entiat
map, and continuing southwesterly
along the 1,600-foot elevation contour to
its intersection with an unnamed stream
in section 35, T26N/R21E; then
(11) Proceed westerly (downstream)
along the unnamed stream for 0.45 mile
to its intersection with the 1,200-foot
elevation contour; then
(12) Proceed southerly along the
1,200-foot elevation contour, crossing
over the Orondo map and onto the
Wenatchee map to the intersection of
the elevation contour with the southern
boundary of section 14, T23N/R20E;
then
(13) Proceed west-northwest in a
straight line for 1.47 miles, crossing the
Columbia River, to the beginning point.
Signed: June 21, 2021.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: June 21 2021.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2021–15054 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
is not located within, nor does it
contain, 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. TTB invites comments on
these proposals.
DATES: TTB must receive your
comments on or before September 13,
2021.
You may electronically
submit comments to TTB on this
proposal using the comment form for
this document as posted within Docket
No. TTB–2021–0005 on the
‘‘Regulations.gov’’ website at https://
www.regulations.gov. Within that
docket, you also may view copies of this
document, the related petition,
supporting materials, and any
comments TTB receives on this
proposal. A direct link to that docket is
available on the TTB website at https://
www.ttb.gov/wine/notices-of-proposedrulemaking under Notice No. 202.
Alternatively, you may submit
comments via postal mail to the
Director, Regulations and Ruling
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box
12, Washington, DC 20005. Please see
the Public Participation section below
for further information on the comments
requested regarding this proposal and
on the submission, confidentiality, and
public disclosure of comments.
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:
ADDRESSES:
Background on Viticultural Areas
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
TTB Authority
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
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 the functions
and duties in the administration and
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB–2021–0005; Notice No.
202]
RIN: 1513–AC81
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Establishment of the
Paulsell Valley Viticultural Area
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
establish the 34,155-acre ‘‘Paulsell
Valley’’ viticultural area in Stanislaus
County, California. The proposed AVA
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37265
enforcement of these provisions to the
TTB Administrator through Treasury
Order 120–01, dated December 10, 2013
(superseding Treasury Order 120–01,
dated January 24, 2003).
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 its geographic origin. The
establishment of AVAs allows vintners
to describe more accurately the origin of
their wines to consumers and helps
consumers to identify wines they may
purchase. Establishment of an AVA is
neither an approval nor an endorsement
by TTB of the wine produced in that
area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations (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;
• An explanation of the basis for
defining the boundary of the proposed
AVA;
• A narrative description of the
features of the proposed AVA that affect
viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation,
that make the proposed AVA distinctive
and distinguish it from adjacent areas
outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• The appropriate United States
Geological Survey (USGS) map(s)
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
37266
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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.
Petition To Establish the Paulsell Valley
AVA
TTB received a petition from Patrick
Shabram, on behalf of Rock Ridge
Ranch, proposing to establish the
‘‘Paulsell Valley’’ AVA. The proposed
AVA is located in Stanislaus County,
California, and is not within any
existing AVA. Within proposed AVA,
there are 3 commercial vineyards which
cover a total of approximately 826 acres.
The petition also notes that a fourth
vineyard is planned for the proposed
AVA and would contain an additional
700 acres of vines. The distinguishing
features of the proposed Paulsell Valley
AVA include its topography, climate,
and soils.
Proposed Paulsell Valley AVA
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Name Evidence
The proposed Paulsell Valley AVA is
located in a valley carved by Dry Creek
in and around the unincorporated
community of Paulsell, California. The
petition notes that, although the name
‘‘Paulsell Valley’’ is not currently
identified by the USGS Board on
Geographic Names or on USGS
topographic maps, the name is
nonetheless used to describe the region
of the proposed AVA. For example, the
1957 Soil Survey of Eastern Stanislaus
County, created by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service, describes the Paulsell series
soil as being found ‘‘along Dry Creek in
the Paulsell Valley.’’ 1 A 1961 soil
association map from the same Federal
agency further describes the Paulsell
soil series as ‘‘deep, clay soils on
lacustrine deposits in Paulsell Valley.’’ 2
The name ‘‘Paulsell Valley’’ has also
been used extensively in articles in the
local newspaper relating to the Oakdale
Irrigation District’s (OID) proposal to
expand water delivery into the region of
the proposed AVA. For example, one
article states, ‘‘Additional farmers in the
Paulsell Valley east of Modesto are also
interested in tapping into OID’s water
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service and University of California
Experiment Station, Soil Survey: Eastern Stanislaus
Area, Series 1957, No. 20, 1964, page 17.
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service and University of California
Agriculture Experiment Station, General Soil Map:
Eastern Stanislaus County, 1961.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
supply * * *.’’ 3 Another article
describes ‘‘options for OID to deliver
water to the Paulsell Valley in eastern
Stanislaus * * *.’’ 4 A third article
carries the headline, ‘‘OID rejects
request to help fund Paulsell Valley
expansion study.’’ 5 Finally, an article
describes the efforts of Stanislaus
County farmers ‘‘such as those in the
Paulsell Valley southeast of Oakdale’’ to
purchase water from the OID.6
Boundary Evidence
The proposed Paulsell Valley AVA is
located on the lowest foothills of the
Sierra Nevada Mountains, above the San
Joaquin Valley floor. The proposed
northern boundary follows a series of
roads and straight lines between points
to separate the proposed AVA from the
fluvial valley of the Stanislaus River.
The proposed eastern boundary largely
follows a series of roads to separate the
proposed AVA from the higher foothills
and mountains within the Sierra
Nevada. The proposed southern
boundary is largely formed by the
shoreline of the Modesto Reservoir and
the Modesto Main Canal. The proposed
western boundary follows a series of
roads and straight lines between points
to separate the proposed AVA from the
lower elevations of the San Joaquin
Valley.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petition, the
distinguishing features of the proposed
Paulsell Valley AVA are its topography,
climate, and soils. The petition also
proposed geology as a distinguishing
feature of the proposed AVA. However,
based on the petition’s descriptions,
geology appears to be too integral to the
region’s soils to be considered
separately from that feature. Therefore,
TTB does not consider geology to be a
separate distinguishing feature of the
proposed AVA.
Topography
According to the petition, the
landscape of the proposed Paulsell
3 Sbranti, J.N., ‘‘Oakdale Irrigation District
considers expanding water deliveries to farms and
homes,’’ The Modesto Bee, May 6, 2014. Accessed
online at https://www.modbee.com/latest-news/
article3164325.html.
4 Sbranti, J.N., ‘‘OID water sales plan bashed by
county advisory committee,’’ The Modesto Bee,
November 19, 2014. Accessed online at https://
www.modbee.com/news/special-reports/
groundwater-crisis/article4025625.html.
5 Sbranti. J.N., ‘‘OID rejects request to help fund
Paulsell Valley expansion study,’’ The Modesto Bee,
September 16, 2014. Accessed online at https://
www.modbee.com/news/local/article3172373.html.
6 Sbranti, J.N., ‘‘OID to discuss selling water to
outside agencies during closed-door meeting,’’ The
Modesto Bee, November 4, 2014. Accessed online
at https://www.modbee.com/news/local/oakdale/
article3546951.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Valley AVA is dominated by rolling
hills marked by cut arroyos, but also
interspersed with steep, isolated hills.
This topography is referred to as
‘‘mound-intermound relief.’’ Because of
the mound-intermound topography, the
petition states that the fluvial valley
known as ‘‘Paulsell Valley’’ can be
difficult to define in areas, as the
isolated hills do not form the typical
drainage divides common to many other
fluvial valleys. Elevations within the
proposed AVA are between 140 and 612
feet, with most of the proposed AVA in
the 180–400 foot range.
The topography of the proposed
Paulsell Valley AVA affects viticulture.
According to the petition, the gentle
slopes within the proposed AVA ensure
good drainage for vineyards. The
isolated nature of higher mounds within
the proposed AVA decreases shadows
on the valley floor, allowing most
vineyards to receive long hours of solar
radiation. Furthermore, soils eroding off
the higher slopes to the east settle in the
lower elevations of the proposed AVA
and help ensure that the soils are not
leached of nutrients.
To the north of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA is the floodplain of the
Stanislaus River, which is described as
a ‘‘more traditional’’ valley carved by
the Stanislaus River. Along the
floodplain are alluvial terraces and fans
that differ from the mound-intermound
topography of the proposed AVA.
Elevations to the north of the proposed
AVA are generally below 300 feet. To
the east of the proposed AVA, the
landscape transitions to the Sierra
Nevada Mountains, which can rise to
several thousand feet. South of the
proposed AVA is the Modesto
Reservoir. To the southwest and
southeast of the proposed AVA, moundintermound relief similar to that of the
proposed AVA is also present, but it
becomes less pronounced because the
upper depositional layers have been
weathered and eroded away. Although
the hills in these regions are lower than
those within the proposed AVA, the
petition states that they occur in greater
frequency. West of the proposed AVA,
the terrain transitions to the San Joaquin
Valley floor, which has significantly
flatter topography and elevations that
are typically below 200 feet.
Climate
According to the petition, the climate
of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA
distinguishes it from the regions to the
east, west, and southwest. Climate data
was not available from the regions to the
immediate north and immediate south
of the proposed AVA. The petition first
describes the growing degree day
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
37267
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
(GDD) 7 accumulations of the proposed
AVA and the surrounding regions. The
petition also included GDD data from a
weather station within the Blue Oak
Vineyard to the southwest of the
proposed AVA. However, because data
was only available from this station
from 2016 and 2017, and more complete
data from the southwest region was also
provided, TTB did not include the Blue
Oak Vineyard data in the following
table.
TABLE 1—2017 GDD ACCUMULATIONS
Weather station location
(direction from proposed AVA)
2012
Rock Ridge Ranch (within) ......................................................................
Rock Creek Vineyard (within) ..................................................................
Warnerville (within) ..................................................................................
Oakdale (west) .........................................................................................
Denair (southwest) ...................................................................................
Green Springs (east) ...............................................................................
The GDD accumulations for the
proposed Paulsell Valley are higher than
those to the west of the proposed AVA
within the San Joaquin Valley, and
similar to slightly higher than those of
the region to the east. The petition
suggests that the differences between
GDD accumulations in the San Joaquin
4,607
N/A
N/A
3,780
3,934
4,624
2013
2014
4,758
N/A
4,268
4,035
4,131
4,586
Valley and Paulsell Valley and the
region to the east are more the result of
lower minimum temperatures on the
San Joaquin Valley floor rather than
lower maximum temperatures. As
evidence, the petition provided data
from within the proposed AVA and the
San Joaquin Valley on the average
5,204
4,922
4,534
4,250
4,338
N/A
2015
5,015
4,756
4,389
4,165
4,437
4,702
2016
2017
4,846
4,461
4,201
4,212
4,142
4,601
4,952
4,455
4,330
4,308
4,120
4,711
growing season low temperatures for the
same time period as the GDD
accumulations data. Once again,
because only two years of data was
available from the Blue Oak Vineyard,
TTB did not include that information in
the following table.
TABLE 2—AVERAGE GROWING SEASON LOW TEMPERATURES
Average
minimum
temperature
(degrees
Fahrenheit)
Weather station location
(direction from proposed AVA)
Rock Ridge Ranch (within) ..................................................................................................................................................................
Rock Creek Vineyard (within) ..............................................................................................................................................................
Warnerville (within) ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Oakdale (west) .....................................................................................................................................................................................
According to the petition, in the
region of the proposed AVA, a general
pattern exists of precipitation increasing
from west to east. The petition included
information on average precipitation
57.9
55.4
54.8
53.9
amounts from 2012–2017, which is
summarized in the following table.
TABLE 3—ANNUAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
Weather station location (direction from proposed AVA)
2012
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Rock Ridge Ranch (within) ......................................................................
Rock Creek Vineyard (within) ..................................................................
Warnerville (within) ..................................................................................
Oakdale (west) .........................................................................................
Denair (southwest) ...................................................................................
Green Springs (east) ...............................................................................
N/A
N/A
18.2
8.6
7.7
N/A
2013
2014
8.3
N/A
10.6
9.7
6.8
N/A
N/A
7.6
8.8
6.6
6.6
N/A
2015
9.6
9.2
10.6
11.4
8.9
N/A
2016
2017
17.9
17.8
20.5
15.9
14.7
30.5
24.0
25.4
26.4
N/A
19.6
37.6
The data supports the claim that
precipitation amounts generally
increase from west to east. The
precipitation amounts for Oakdale,
within the San Joaquin Valley, are
generally lower than those of the
proposed AVA. Although data from the
Green Springs weather station was only
available from 2016 and 2017, the
rainfall amounts for those two years is
significantly higher than those for the
proposed AVA and the San Joaquin
Valley, as would be expected for an
eastern location. Therefore, TTB
included the data in the table.
The climate of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA has an effect on viticulture.
According to the petition, temperatures
impact the timing of bud break, grape
development and sugar accumulations,
and harvest dates. Hence, grapes grown
within the proposed AVA experience
different bud break, flowering, veraison,
and harvest dates than the regions to the
south and west which have lower GDD
accumulations. Precipitation amounts in
the proposed AVA offer more soil
moisture than regions in the San
Joaquin Valley, thus reducing the need
for irrigation. Additionally, the level of
7 See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2nd Ed.
1974), pages 61–64. In the Winkler climate
classification system, annual heat accumulation
during the growing season, measured in annual
GDDs, defines climatic regions. One GDD
accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day’s
mean temperature is above 50 degrees F, the
minimum temperature required for grapevine
growth.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
37268
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
precipitation in the proposed AVA may
partly help to alleviate some of the
concerns related to certain diseases and
the accumulation of excess juice that
can dilute grape flavors, which may
impact viticulture in the wetter regions
to the east.
Soils
According to the petition, the region
of the proposed AVA was heavily
deposited by ancient volcanic activity
that was primarily pyroclastic in nature
(i.e., lacking lava flow). Layers of
volcanic tuff, which is rock created from
the deposition of volcanic ash instead of
from direct lava flow, form the parent
material for the most common soil
types. Additionally, alluvial fans
associated with volcanic activity and
significant flooding events provide an
additional source for soils within the
proposed AVA. The most common soils
within the proposed AVA are the Pentz
series soils, ranging from Pentz cobbly
loam to Pentz sandy loam. These soils
are described as shallow, well-drained
soils that formed in material weathered
from tuffaceous sediments and are
frequently found on hilly terrain. Pentz
soils account from 23 percent of the
soils within the proposed AVA.
Associated with the Pentz soils and
common to the proposed AVA are the
Peters series soils, which account for 11
percent of the soils within the proposed
AVA. These soils are very similar to the
Pentz soils, but occur on nearly-level to
steep terrain. The Peters-Pentz complex
is also present within the proposed
AVA. The petition defines a complex as
similar soil types mixed at such a scale
that they are not defined as one type or
the other. The Peters-Pentz complex
makes up a little more than 22 percent
of the soils within the proposed AVA.
Other soil series of note within the
proposed AVA are the Keyes, Raynor,
and Paulsell series. Keyes soils
comprise 10 percent of the soils within
the proposed AVA, while Raynor and
Paulsell soils make up 8 and 7 percent,
respectively. Keyes soils are formed on
material weathered from basic andesitic
sediment and are found on alluvial fans
and terraces or in mound-intermound
relief. Raynor clay is formed from
andesitic mudstone, while Paulsell clay
is an alluvial soil formed from former
lake sediment.
The petition notes that Peters, Pentz,
and Keyes soils are all found in the
regions to the west and southeast of the
proposed AVA, as tuffaceous and fluvial
deposits are not limited to the proposed
AVA. Raynor and Paulsell soils are also
found elsewhere. However, the petition
states that sharp contrasts in soils exist
to the north, northeast, and south of the
proposed Paulsell Valley AVA. To the
northeast, the Amador and Auburn
series are more common. These soils are
formed from tuffaceous sediments,
similar to the Peters and Pentz soils.
The Auburn soil, however, has
metamorphic parent material,
specifically amphibolite schist. Other
soils in the regions to the northeast of
the proposed AVA are derived from
metamorphosed igneous rock, such as
the Exchequer soils, or sedimentary
rock, such as the Hornitos soils.
The petition states that to the south of
the proposed AVA, Hopeton clays,
Montpellier coarse sandy loam, and
Whitney sandy loams are more
common. These soils are formed from
deposited sediments usually of granitic
origin, or weakly consolidated
sandstone of weathered ingenuous
materials, and lack volcanic tuff
material. Additionally, the petition
states that to the north of the proposed
AVA, alluvial sandy soils are found in
deposits along the Stanislaus River
floodplain, including Honcut, Hanford,
and Columbia series soil. Tailings and
dredge from former mining operations
are also abundant along the river
floodplain.
According to the petition, the soils of
a region can affect overall grape
characteristics. Holding capacity
impacts how much moisture can be
utilized by the vine from rainfall. Good
drainage helps prevent soil-borne
pathogens that can harm vines. The
mineral content of the soil is often
credited with creating subtle distinction
in flavor. Hence, the petition asserts that
soils of the Paulsell Valley, which are
derived of ash and fluvial fans mixed
with ash, have a different mineral
content and holding capacity than the
soils of the surrounding regions, and
have the potential to produce subtle
flavor characteristics to grapes grown in
these soils.
Summary of Distinguishing Features
The following table summarizes the
characteristics of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA and the surrounding
regions.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF DISTINGUISHING FEATURES
Location
Topography
Proposed
Paulsell Valley
AVA.
Rolling hills, moundintermound relief; elevations between 140
and 612 feet.
North ..................
Floodplain of the
Stanislaus River; elevations generally below
300 feet.
Sierra Nevada Mountains;
elevations up to several
thousand feet.
Modesto Reservoir ...........
East ....................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
South .................
West ...................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
San Joaquin Valley; significantly flatter terrain;
elevations typically
below 200 feet.
16:18 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Climate
Soils
Average GDDs between 4,201 and
5,204; average growing season low
temperatures between 54.8 and 57.9
degrees; Annual rainfall amounts between 7.6 and 26.4 degrees.
Not available ..........................................
Pentz, Peters, Keyes, Raynor, and Paulsell series
and the Peters-Pentz complex; primarily formed
from volcanic tuff and alluvial fans associated with
volcanic activity and severe flooding.
Similar to slightly lower GDD accumulations; higher annual rainfall amounts.
Amador, Auburn, Exchequer, and Hornitos series;
derived from tuffaceous sediments, metamorphic or
sedimentary parent material.
Hopeton clays, Montpellier coarse sandy loam, and
Whitney sandy loams; formed from deposited sediments of granitic origin or weakly consolidated
sandstone of weathered ingenuous materials; lack
volcanic tuff.
Similar to proposed AVA.
Lower GDD accumulations; temperature; lower annual rainfall amounts.
Lower GDD accumulations; lower average growing season low temperature;
lower annual rainfall amounts.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Honcut, Hanford, and Columbia series; alluvial sandy
soils and tailings and dredge from former mining
operations.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to
establish the 34,155-acre ‘‘Paulsell
Valley’’ AVA merits consideration and
public comment, as invited in this
document.
‘‘Paulsell Valley’’ as an appellation of
origin for wines made from grapes
grown within the proposed AVA, if the
wines meet the eligibility requirements
for the appellation.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary
descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA
in the proposed regulatory text
published at the end of this document.
Comments Invited
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Maps
The petitioner provided the required
maps, and they are listed below in the
proposed regulatory text. You may also
view the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA
boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on
the TTB website, at https://www.ttb.gov/
wine/ava-map-explorer.
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 would
have to obtain approval of a new label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a
brand name containing an AVA name
that was used as a brand name on a
label approved before July 7, 1986. See
27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA,
its name, ‘‘Paulsell Valley,’’ will be
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 proposed regulation clarifies
this point. Consequently, wine bottlers
using ‘‘Paulsell Valley’’ in a brand
name, including a trademark, or in
another label reference as to the origin
of the wine, would have to ensure that
the product is eligible to use the
viticultural area’s name as an
appellation of origin if this proposed
rule is adopted as a final rule.
The approval of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA would not affect any
existing AVA. If approved, the
establishment of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA would allow vintners to use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
Public Participation
TTB invites comments from interested
members of the public on whether TTB
should establish the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA. TTB is interested in
receiving comments on the sufficiency
and accuracy of the name, boundary,
topography, climate, soils, and other
required information submitted in
support of the AVA petition. Please
provide any available specific
information in support of your
comments.
Because of the potential impact of the
establishment of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA on wine labels that include
the term ‘‘Paulsell Valley’’ as discussed
above under Impact on Current Wine
Labels, TTB is particularly interested in
comments regarding whether there will
be a conflict between the proposed area
names and currently used brand names.
If a commenter believes that a conflict
will arise, the comment should describe
the nature of that conflict, including any
anticipated negative economic impact
that approval of the proposed AVA will
have on an existing viticultural
enterprise. TTB is also interested in
receiving suggestions for ways to avoid
conflicts, for example, by adopting a
modified or different name for the
proposed AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this
proposal as an individual or on behalf
of a business or other organization via
the Regulations.gov website or via
postal mail, as described in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
Your comment must reference Notice
No. 202 and must be submitted or
postmarked by the closing date shown
in the DATES section of this document.
You may upload or include attachments
with your comment. You also may
submit a comment requesting a public
hearing on this proposal. The TTB
Administrator reserves the right to
determine whether to hold a public
hearing.
Confidentiality and Disclosure of
Comments
All submitted comments and
attachments are part of the rulemaking
record and are subject to public
disclosure. Do not enclose any material
in your comments that you consider
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37269
confidential or that is inappropriate for
disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view,
copies of this document, the related
petition, supporting materials, and any
comments TTB receives about this
proposal within the related
Regulations.gov docket. In general, TTB
will post comments as submitted, and it
will not redact any identifying or
contact information from the body of a
comment or attachment.
Please contact TTB’s Regulations and
Rulings division by email using the web
form available at https://www.ttb.gov/
contact-rrd, or by telephone at 202–453–
2265, if you have any questions
regarding comments on this proposal or
to request copies of this document, its
supporting materials, or the comments
received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed
regulation, if adopted, would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The proposed regulation imposes no
new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of a viticultural
area name would be the result of a
proprietor’s efforts and consumer
acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this
proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory
assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations
and Rulings Division drafted this
document.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, we propose to amend title 27,
chapter 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. Add § 9. lll to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
37270
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 9. lll
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Paulsell Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is
‘‘Paulsell Valley’’. For purposes of part
4 of this chapter, ‘‘Paulsell Valley’’ is a
term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The four United
States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to
determine the boundary of the
viticultural area are titled:
(1) Knights Ferry, California, 2015;
(2) Keystone, California, 2015;
(3) Cooperstown, California, 2015;
and
(4) Paulsell, California, 2015.
(c) Boundary. The Paulsell Valley
viticultural area is located in Stanislaus
County, California. The boundary of the
Paulsell Valley viticultural area is as
described in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(20) of this section:
(1) The beginning point is on the
Knights Ferry map at the intersection of
Willms Road, Kennedy Road/Sonora
Road, and State Highway 108/State
Highway 120. From the beginning point,
proceed southeasterly along Willms
Road for 7.2 miles, crossing over the
Keystone map and onto the
Cooperstown map, to the intersection of
Willms Road and Warnerville Road at
the Warnerville Cemetery; then
(2) Proceed west, then south along
Warnerville Road for a total of 0.5 mile
to its intersection with Crabtree Road at
the railroad tracks west of the town of
Warnerville; then
(3) Proceed in a southerly direction
along Crabtree Road for 6.7 miles to its
intersection with the canal known
locally as the Modesto Main Canal; then
(4) Proceed westerly along the canal,
crossing onto the Paulsell map, and
continuing along the canal for a total of
1.6 miles to the Modesto Reservoir; then
(5) Proceed along the eastern shore,
then northern shore, of the Modesto
Reservoir for 12.9 miles to the fifth
intersection of the shore with an
unnamed, intermittent creek at the
northernmost point of the reservoir;
then
(6) Proceed southwesterly in a straight
line to the northern terminus of
Reservoir Road; then
(7) Proceed south-southwest along
Reservoir Road for 2.2 miles to its
intersection with the 200-foot elevation
contour; then
(8) Proceed northwest in a straight
line for 1.2 miles to the intersection of
Hazeldean Road and Tim Bell Road;
then
(9) Proceed north along Tim Bell Road
for 3.1 miles to its intersection with
Claribel Road south of the town of
Paulsell; then
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 14, 2021
Jkt 253001
(10) Proceed west along Claribel Road
for 2.4 miles, crossing Cashman Creek,
to the intersection of the road with the
260-foot elevation contour; then
(11) Proceed north in a straight line
for 2 miles to the intersection of
Warnerville Road and the 300-foot
elevation contour east of Cashman
Creek; then
(12) Proceed northeast in a straight
line, crossing onto the Knights Ferry
map and continuing for a total of 1.1
miles to the intersection of Fogarty Road
and a railroad track; then
(13) Proceed east in a straight line for
0.9 mile to Paulsell Lateral; then
(14) Proceed northerly along Paulsell
Lateral for 2.4 miles to its intersection
with Cashman Creek; then
(15) Proceed northwest in a straight
line for 1.3 miles to State Highway 108/
State Highway 120; then
(16) Proceed northeast in a straight
line for 2.4 miles to the third
intersection of State Highway 108/State
Highway 120 with the 300-foot
elevation contour; then
(17) Proceed southeast along State
Highway 108/State Highway 120 for 1
mile to its intersection with the 260-foot
elevation contour; then
(18) Proceed northeasterly along the
260-elevation contour for 1.4 miles to its
intersection with Sonora Road southeast
of Knights Ferry; then
(19) Proceed southeast along Sonora
Road for 0.1 mile to its intersection with
Kennedy Road; then
(20) Proceed northeast, then east, then
south along Kennedy Road/Sonora Road
for 0.4 mile, returning to the beginning
point.
Signed: June 21, 2021.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: June 21, 2021.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2021–15053 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket Number USCG–2021–0505]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake
Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent
Island, MD
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Coast Guard, DHS.
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish special local regulations for
certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay.
This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on these navigable
waters located between Sandy Point,
Anne Arundel County, MD, and Kent
Island, Queen Anne’s County, MD,
during a paddling event on September
26, 2021. This proposed rulemaking
would prohibit persons and vessels
from entering the regulated area unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Maryland-National Capital Region or the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We
invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before August 16, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2021–0505 using the Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron
Houck, Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
410–576–2674, email D05-DGSectorMD-NCR-MarineEvents@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
ABC Events, Inc. of Arnold, MD, has
notified the Coast Guard that it will be
conducting the Bay Bridge Paddle from
8 a.m. to noon on September 26, 2021.
The annual canoe, kayak and stand up
paddle board event for elite and
intermediate paddlers includes up to
400 paddlers in two classes operating on
two race courses in the Chesapeake Bay,
under and between the north and south
bridges that consist of the William P.
Lane, Jr. (US–50/301) Memorial Bridges,
located between Sandy Point, Anne
Arundel County, MD, and Kent Island,
Queen Anne’s County, MD. The first
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37265-37270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15053]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2021-0005; Notice No. 202]
RIN: 1513-AC81
Proposed Establishment of the Paulsell Valley Viticultural Area
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
establish the 34,155-acre ``Paulsell Valley'' viticultural area in
Stanislaus County, California. The proposed AVA is not located within,
nor does it contain, 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. TTB invites comments on these proposals.
DATES: TTB must receive your comments on or before September 13, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this
proposal using the comment form for this document as posted within
Docket No. TTB-2021-0005 on the ``Regulations.gov'' website at https://www.regulations.gov. Within that docket, you also may view copies of
this document, the related petition, supporting materials, and any
comments TTB receives on this proposal. A direct link to that docket is
available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/notices-of-proposed-rulemaking under Notice No. 202. Alternatively, you may submit
comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Ruling
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW,
Box 12, Washington, DC 20005. Please see the Public Participation
section below for further information on the comments requested
regarding this proposal and on the submission, confidentiality, and
public disclosure of comments.
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 the functions
and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions to
the TTB Administrator through Treasury Order 120-01, dated December 10,
2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003).
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 its
geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (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 that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s)
[[Page 37266]]
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.
Petition To Establish the Paulsell Valley AVA
TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram, on behalf of Rock
Ridge Ranch, proposing to establish the ``Paulsell Valley'' AVA. The
proposed AVA is located in Stanislaus County, California, and is not
within any existing AVA. Within proposed AVA, there are 3 commercial
vineyards which cover a total of approximately 826 acres. The petition
also notes that a fourth vineyard is planned for the proposed AVA and
would contain an additional 700 acres of vines. The distinguishing
features of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA include its topography,
climate, and soils.
Proposed Paulsell Valley AVA
Name Evidence
The proposed Paulsell Valley AVA is located in a valley carved by
Dry Creek in and around the unincorporated community of Paulsell,
California. The petition notes that, although the name ``Paulsell
Valley'' is not currently identified by the USGS Board on Geographic
Names or on USGS topographic maps, the name is nonetheless used to
describe the region of the proposed AVA. For example, the 1957 Soil
Survey of Eastern Stanislaus County, created by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, describes the Paulsell series
soil as being found ``along Dry Creek in the Paulsell Valley.'' \1\ A
1961 soil association map from the same Federal agency further
describes the Paulsell soil series as ``deep, clay soils on lacustrine
deposits in Paulsell Valley.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and
University of California Experiment Station, Soil Survey: Eastern
Stanislaus Area, Series 1957, No. 20, 1964, page 17.
\2\ U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and
University of California Agriculture Experiment Station, General
Soil Map: Eastern Stanislaus County, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The name ``Paulsell Valley'' has also been used extensively in
articles in the local newspaper relating to the Oakdale Irrigation
District's (OID) proposal to expand water delivery into the region of
the proposed AVA. For example, one article states, ``Additional farmers
in the Paulsell Valley east of Modesto are also interested in tapping
into OID's water supply * * *.'' \3\ Another article describes
``options for OID to deliver water to the Paulsell Valley in eastern
Stanislaus * * *.'' \4\ A third article carries the headline, ``OID
rejects request to help fund Paulsell Valley expansion study.'' \5\
Finally, an article describes the efforts of Stanislaus County farmers
``such as those in the Paulsell Valley southeast of Oakdale'' to
purchase water from the OID.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sbranti, J.N., ``Oakdale Irrigation District considers
expanding water deliveries to farms and homes,'' The Modesto Bee,
May 6, 2014. Accessed online at https://www.modbee.com/latest-news/article3164325.html.
\4\ Sbranti, J.N., ``OID water sales plan bashed by county
advisory committee,'' The Modesto Bee, November 19, 2014. Accessed
online at https://www.modbee.com/news/special-reports/groundwater-crisis/article4025625.html.
\5\ Sbranti. J.N., ``OID rejects request to help fund Paulsell
Valley expansion study,'' The Modesto Bee, September 16, 2014.
Accessed online at https://www.modbee.com/news/local/article3172373.html.
\6\ Sbranti, J.N., ``OID to discuss selling water to outside
agencies during closed-door meeting,'' The Modesto Bee, November 4,
2014. Accessed online at https://www.modbee.com/news/local/oakdale/article3546951.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Evidence
The proposed Paulsell Valley AVA is located on the lowest foothills
of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, above the San Joaquin Valley floor. The
proposed northern boundary follows a series of roads and straight lines
between points to separate the proposed AVA from the fluvial valley of
the Stanislaus River. The proposed eastern boundary largely follows a
series of roads to separate the proposed AVA from the higher foothills
and mountains within the Sierra Nevada. The proposed southern boundary
is largely formed by the shoreline of the Modesto Reservoir and the
Modesto Main Canal. The proposed western boundary follows a series of
roads and straight lines between points to separate the proposed AVA
from the lower elevations of the San Joaquin Valley.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the
proposed Paulsell Valley AVA are its topography, climate, and soils.
The petition also proposed geology as a distinguishing feature of the
proposed AVA. However, based on the petition's descriptions, geology
appears to be too integral to the region's soils to be considered
separately from that feature. Therefore, TTB does not consider geology
to be a separate distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA.
Topography
According to the petition, the landscape of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA is dominated by rolling hills marked by cut arroyos, but
also interspersed with steep, isolated hills. This topography is
referred to as ``mound-intermound relief.'' Because of the mound-
intermound topography, the petition states that the fluvial valley
known as ``Paulsell Valley'' can be difficult to define in areas, as
the isolated hills do not form the typical drainage divides common to
many other fluvial valleys. Elevations within the proposed AVA are
between 140 and 612 feet, with most of the proposed AVA in the 180-400
foot range.
The topography of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA affects
viticulture. According to the petition, the gentle slopes within the
proposed AVA ensure good drainage for vineyards. The isolated nature of
higher mounds within the proposed AVA decreases shadows on the valley
floor, allowing most vineyards to receive long hours of solar
radiation. Furthermore, soils eroding off the higher slopes to the east
settle in the lower elevations of the proposed AVA and help ensure that
the soils are not leached of nutrients.
To the north of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA is the floodplain
of the Stanislaus River, which is described as a ``more traditional''
valley carved by the Stanislaus River. Along the floodplain are
alluvial terraces and fans that differ from the mound-intermound
topography of the proposed AVA. Elevations to the north of the proposed
AVA are generally below 300 feet. To the east of the proposed AVA, the
landscape transitions to the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which can rise to
several thousand feet. South of the proposed AVA is the Modesto
Reservoir. To the southwest and southeast of the proposed AVA, mound-
intermound relief similar to that of the proposed AVA is also present,
but it becomes less pronounced because the upper depositional layers
have been weathered and eroded away. Although the hills in these
regions are lower than those within the proposed AVA, the petition
states that they occur in greater frequency. West of the proposed AVA,
the terrain transitions to the San Joaquin Valley floor, which has
significantly flatter topography and elevations that are typically
below 200 feet.
Climate
According to the petition, the climate of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA distinguishes it from the regions to the east, west, and
southwest. Climate data was not available from the regions to the
immediate north and immediate south of the proposed AVA. The petition
first describes the growing degree day
[[Page 37267]]
(GDD) \7\ accumulations of the proposed AVA and the surrounding
regions. The petition also included GDD data from a weather station
within the Blue Oak Vineyard to the southwest of the proposed AVA.
However, because data was only available from this station from 2016
and 2017, and more complete data from the southwest region was also
provided, TTB did not include the Blue Oak Vineyard data in the
following table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2nd Ed. 1974), pages 61-64. In the
Winkler climate classification system, annual heat accumulation
during the growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines climatic
regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's
mean temperature is above 50 degrees F, the minimum temperature
required for grapevine growth.
Table 1--2017 GDD Accumulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather station location (direction from
proposed AVA) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Ridge Ranch (within)..................... 4,607 4,758 5,204 5,015 4,846 4,952
Rock Creek Vineyard (within).................. N/A N/A 4,922 4,756 4,461 4,455
Warnerville (within).......................... N/A 4,268 4,534 4,389 4,201 4,330
Oakdale (west)................................ 3,780 4,035 4,250 4,165 4,212 4,308
Denair (southwest)............................ 3,934 4,131 4,338 4,437 4,142 4,120
Green Springs (east).......................... 4,624 4,586 N/A 4,702 4,601 4,711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GDD accumulations for the proposed Paulsell Valley are higher
than those to the west of the proposed AVA within the San Joaquin
Valley, and similar to slightly higher than those of the region to the
east. The petition suggests that the differences between GDD
accumulations in the San Joaquin Valley and Paulsell Valley and the
region to the east are more the result of lower minimum temperatures on
the San Joaquin Valley floor rather than lower maximum temperatures. As
evidence, the petition provided data from within the proposed AVA and
the San Joaquin Valley on the average growing season low temperatures
for the same time period as the GDD accumulations data. Once again,
because only two years of data was available from the Blue Oak
Vineyard, TTB did not include that information in the following table.
Table 2--Average Growing Season Low Temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
minimum
Weather station location (direction from proposed AVA) temperature
(degrees
Fahrenheit)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Ridge Ranch (within)............................... 57.9
Rock Creek Vineyard (within)............................ 55.4
Warnerville (within).................................... 54.8
Oakdale (west).......................................... 53.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the petition, in the region of the proposed AVA, a
general pattern exists of precipitation increasing from west to east.
The petition included information on average precipitation amounts from
2012-2017, which is summarized in the following table.
Table 3--Annual Precipitation in Inches
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather station location (direction from
proposed AVA) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Ridge Ranch (within)..................... N/A 8.3 N/A 9.6 17.9 24.0
Rock Creek Vineyard (within).................. N/A N/A 7.6 9.2 17.8 25.4
Warnerville (within).......................... 18.2 10.6 8.8 10.6 20.5 26.4
Oakdale (west)................................ 8.6 9.7 6.6 11.4 15.9 N/A
Denair (southwest)............................ 7.7 6.8 6.6 8.9 14.7 19.6
Green Springs (east).......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A 30.5 37.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data supports the claim that precipitation amounts generally
increase from west to east. The precipitation amounts for Oakdale,
within the San Joaquin Valley, are generally lower than those of the
proposed AVA. Although data from the Green Springs weather station was
only available from 2016 and 2017, the rainfall amounts for those two
years is significantly higher than those for the proposed AVA and the
San Joaquin Valley, as would be expected for an eastern location.
Therefore, TTB included the data in the table.
The climate of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA has an effect on
viticulture. According to the petition, temperatures impact the timing
of bud break, grape development and sugar accumulations, and harvest
dates. Hence, grapes grown within the proposed AVA experience different
bud break, flowering, veraison, and harvest dates than the regions to
the south and west which have lower GDD accumulations. Precipitation
amounts in the proposed AVA offer more soil moisture than regions in
the San Joaquin Valley, thus reducing the need for irrigation.
Additionally, the level of
[[Page 37268]]
precipitation in the proposed AVA may partly help to alleviate some of
the concerns related to certain diseases and the accumulation of excess
juice that can dilute grape flavors, which may impact viticulture in
the wetter regions to the east.
Soils
According to the petition, the region of the proposed AVA was
heavily deposited by ancient volcanic activity that was primarily
pyroclastic in nature (i.e., lacking lava flow). Layers of volcanic
tuff, which is rock created from the deposition of volcanic ash instead
of from direct lava flow, form the parent material for the most common
soil types. Additionally, alluvial fans associated with volcanic
activity and significant flooding events provide an additional source
for soils within the proposed AVA. The most common soils within the
proposed AVA are the Pentz series soils, ranging from Pentz cobbly loam
to Pentz sandy loam. These soils are described as shallow, well-drained
soils that formed in material weathered from tuffaceous sediments and
are frequently found on hilly terrain. Pentz soils account from 23
percent of the soils within the proposed AVA.
Associated with the Pentz soils and common to the proposed AVA are
the Peters series soils, which account for 11 percent of the soils
within the proposed AVA. These soils are very similar to the Pentz
soils, but occur on nearly-level to steep terrain. The Peters-Pentz
complex is also present within the proposed AVA. The petition defines a
complex as similar soil types mixed at such a scale that they are not
defined as one type or the other. The Peters-Pentz complex makes up a
little more than 22 percent of the soils within the proposed AVA.
Other soil series of note within the proposed AVA are the Keyes,
Raynor, and Paulsell series. Keyes soils comprise 10 percent of the
soils within the proposed AVA, while Raynor and Paulsell soils make up
8 and 7 percent, respectively. Keyes soils are formed on material
weathered from basic andesitic sediment and are found on alluvial fans
and terraces or in mound-intermound relief. Raynor clay is formed from
andesitic mudstone, while Paulsell clay is an alluvial soil formed from
former lake sediment.
The petition notes that Peters, Pentz, and Keyes soils are all
found in the regions to the west and southeast of the proposed AVA, as
tuffaceous and fluvial deposits are not limited to the proposed AVA.
Raynor and Paulsell soils are also found elsewhere. However, the
petition states that sharp contrasts in soils exist to the north,
northeast, and south of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA. To the
northeast, the Amador and Auburn series are more common. These soils
are formed from tuffaceous sediments, similar to the Peters and Pentz
soils. The Auburn soil, however, has metamorphic parent material,
specifically amphibolite schist. Other soils in the regions to the
northeast of the proposed AVA are derived from metamorphosed igneous
rock, such as the Exchequer soils, or sedimentary rock, such as the
Hornitos soils.
The petition states that to the south of the proposed AVA, Hopeton
clays, Montpellier coarse sandy loam, and Whitney sandy loams are more
common. These soils are formed from deposited sediments usually of
granitic origin, or weakly consolidated sandstone of weathered
ingenuous materials, and lack volcanic tuff material. Additionally, the
petition states that to the north of the proposed AVA, alluvial sandy
soils are found in deposits along the Stanislaus River floodplain,
including Honcut, Hanford, and Columbia series soil. Tailings and
dredge from former mining operations are also abundant along the river
floodplain.
According to the petition, the soils of a region can affect overall
grape characteristics. Holding capacity impacts how much moisture can
be utilized by the vine from rainfall. Good drainage helps prevent
soil-borne pathogens that can harm vines. The mineral content of the
soil is often credited with creating subtle distinction in flavor.
Hence, the petition asserts that soils of the Paulsell Valley, which
are derived of ash and fluvial fans mixed with ash, have a different
mineral content and holding capacity than the soils of the surrounding
regions, and have the potential to produce subtle flavor
characteristics to grapes grown in these soils.
Summary of Distinguishing Features
The following table summarizes the characteristics of the proposed
Paulsell Valley AVA and the surrounding regions.
Table 4--Summary of Distinguishing Features
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Topography Climate Soils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Paulsell Valley AVA. Rolling hills, mound- Average GDDs between Pentz, Peters, Keyes, Raynor,
intermound relief; 4,201 and 5,204; and Paulsell series and the
elevations between 140 average growing season Peters-Pentz complex;
and 612 feet. low temperatures primarily formed from
between 54.8 and 57.9 volcanic tuff and alluvial
degrees; Annual fans associated with
rainfall amounts volcanic activity and severe
between 7.6 and 26.4 flooding.
degrees.
North........................ Floodplain of the Not available........... Honcut, Hanford, and Columbia
Stanislaus River; series; alluvial sandy soils
elevations generally and tailings and dredge from
below 300 feet. former mining operations.
East......................... Sierra Nevada Mountains; Similar to slightly Amador, Auburn, Exchequer,
elevations up to lower GDD and Hornitos series; derived
several thousand feet. accumulations; higher from tuffaceous sediments,
annual rainfall amounts. metamorphic or sedimentary
parent material.
South........................ Modesto Reservoir....... Lower GDD accumulations; Hopeton clays, Montpellier
temperature; lower coarse sandy loam, and
annual rainfall amounts. Whitney sandy loams; formed
from deposited sediments of
granitic origin or weakly
consolidated sandstone of
weathered ingenuous
materials; lack volcanic
tuff.
West......................... San Joaquin Valley; Lower GDD accumulations; Similar to proposed AVA.
significantly flatter lower average growing
terrain; elevations season low temperature;
typically below 200 lower annual rainfall
feet. amounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37269]]
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 34,155-acre
``Paulsell Valley'' AVA merits consideration and public comment, as
invited in this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA
in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed
Paulsell Valley AVA boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB
website, at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer.
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 would have
to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has
a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a
label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``Paulsell
Valley,'' will be 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 proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently,
wine bottlers using ``Paulsell Valley'' in a brand name, including a
trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine,
would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the
viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin if this proposed
rule is adopted as a final rule.
The approval of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA would not affect
any existing AVA. If approved, the establishment of the proposed
Paulsell Valley AVA would allow vintners to use ``Paulsell Valley'' as
an appellation of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the
proposed AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the
appellation.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on
whether TTB should establish the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA. TTB is
interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the
name, boundary, topography, climate, soils, and other required
information submitted in support of the AVA petition. Please provide
any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Paulsell Valley AVA on wine labels that include the term
``Paulsell Valley'' as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine
Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether
there will be a conflict between the proposed area names and currently
used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise,
the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any
anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA
will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also
interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for
example, by adopting a modified or different name for the proposed AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this proposal as an individual or on
behalf of a business or other organization via the Regulations.gov
website or via postal mail, as described in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. Your comment must reference Notice No. 202 and must be
submitted or postmarked by the closing date shown in the DATES section
of this document. You may upload or include attachments with your
comment. You also may submit a comment requesting a public hearing on
this proposal. The TTB Administrator reserves the right to determine
whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality and Disclosure of Comments
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the rulemaking
record and are subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any
material in your comments that you consider confidential or that is
inappropriate for disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, the
related petition, supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives
about this proposal within the related Regulations.gov docket. In
general, TTB will post comments as submitted, and it will not redact
any identifying or contact information from the body of a comment or
attachment.
Please contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings division by email
using the web form available at https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by
telephone at 202-453-2265, if you have any questions regarding comments
on this proposal or to request copies of this document, its supporting
materials, or the comments received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived
from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a
proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this document.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend
title 27, chapter 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. Add Sec. 9. ___ to read as follows:
[[Page 37270]]
Sec. 9. ___ Paulsell Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Paulsell Valley''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``Paulsell Valley'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The four United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
viticultural area are titled:
(1) Knights Ferry, California, 2015;
(2) Keystone, California, 2015;
(3) Cooperstown, California, 2015; and
(4) Paulsell, California, 2015.
(c) Boundary. The Paulsell Valley viticultural area is located in
Stanislaus County, California. The boundary of the Paulsell Valley
viticultural area is as described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (20) of
this section:
(1) The beginning point is on the Knights Ferry map at the
intersection of Willms Road, Kennedy Road/Sonora Road, and State
Highway 108/State Highway 120. From the beginning point, proceed
southeasterly along Willms Road for 7.2 miles, crossing over the
Keystone map and onto the Cooperstown map, to the intersection of
Willms Road and Warnerville Road at the Warnerville Cemetery; then
(2) Proceed west, then south along Warnerville Road for a total of
0.5 mile to its intersection with Crabtree Road at the railroad tracks
west of the town of Warnerville; then
(3) Proceed in a southerly direction along Crabtree Road for 6.7
miles to its intersection with the canal known locally as the Modesto
Main Canal; then
(4) Proceed westerly along the canal, crossing onto the Paulsell
map, and continuing along the canal for a total of 1.6 miles to the
Modesto Reservoir; then
(5) Proceed along the eastern shore, then northern shore, of the
Modesto Reservoir for 12.9 miles to the fifth intersection of the shore
with an unnamed, intermittent creek at the northernmost point of the
reservoir; then
(6) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line to the northern
terminus of Reservoir Road; then
(7) Proceed south-southwest along Reservoir Road for 2.2 miles to
its intersection with the 200-foot elevation contour; then
(8) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.2 miles to the
intersection of Hazeldean Road and Tim Bell Road; then
(9) Proceed north along Tim Bell Road for 3.1 miles to its
intersection with Claribel Road south of the town of Paulsell; then
(10) Proceed west along Claribel Road for 2.4 miles, crossing
Cashman Creek, to the intersection of the road with the 260-foot
elevation contour; then
(11) Proceed north in a straight line for 2 miles to the
intersection of Warnerville Road and the 300-foot elevation contour
east of Cashman Creek; then
(12) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the
Knights Ferry map and continuing for a total of 1.1 miles to the
intersection of Fogarty Road and a railroad track; then
(13) Proceed east in a straight line for 0.9 mile to Paulsell
Lateral; then
(14) Proceed northerly along Paulsell Lateral for 2.4 miles to its
intersection with Cashman Creek; then
(15) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.3 miles to State
Highway 108/State Highway 120; then
(16) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 2.4 miles to the
third intersection of State Highway 108/State Highway 120 with the 300-
foot elevation contour; then
(17) Proceed southeast along State Highway 108/State Highway 120
for 1 mile to its intersection with the 260-foot elevation contour;
then
(18) Proceed northeasterly along the 260-elevation contour for 1.4
miles to its intersection with Sonora Road southeast of Knights Ferry;
then
(19) Proceed southeast along Sonora Road for 0.1 mile to its
intersection with Kennedy Road; then
(20) Proceed northeast, then east, then south along Kennedy Road/
Sonora Road for 0.4 mile, returning to the beginning point.
Signed: June 21, 2021.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: June 21, 2021.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2021-15053 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
