[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56544-56549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22596]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2011-0009; T.D. TTB-106; Ref: Notice Nos. 123 and 123A]
RIN 1513-AB67


Establishment of the Middleburg Virginia Viticultural Area

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 198-square mile ``Middleburg Virginia'' viticultural 
area in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties in northern Virginia. TTB 
designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to

[[Page 56545]]

better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to 
better identify wines they may purchase.

DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and 
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 
Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas

TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe 
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt 
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among 
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading 
statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with 
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act 
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various 
authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated 
January 21, 2003, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and 
duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the 
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their 
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets 
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the 
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas and lists 
the approved American viticultural areas.

Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) 
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of 
the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in 
part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and 
consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other 
characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its 
geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows 
vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to 
consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. 
Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an 
endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure 
for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any 
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region 
as a viticultural area. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 
9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or 
modification of American viticultural areas. Such petitions must 
include the following:
     Evidence that the area within the proposed viticultural 
area boundary is nationally or locally known by the viticultural area 
name specified in the petition;
     An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of 
the proposed viticultural area;
     A narrative description of the features of the proposed 
viticultural area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, 
soils, physical features, and elevation, that make it distinctive and 
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed viticultural 
area boundary;
     A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey 
(USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed viticultural area, 
with the boundary of the proposed viticultural area clearly drawn 
thereon; and
     A detailed narrative description of the proposed 
viticultural area boundary based on USGS map markings.

Middleburg Virginia Petition

    In August 2008, TTB received a petition from Rachel E. Martin, 
executive vice president of Boxwood Winery in Middleburg, Virginia, 
proposing the establishment of the ``Middleburg Virginia'' American 
viticultural area in portions of Loudoun and Fauquier Counties in 
northern Virginia. The petition states that the proposed viticultural 
area derives its name from the Town of Middleburg, Virginia, and it is 
bounded by the Potomac River to the north and by mountains to the east, 
south, and west. The petition notes that the proposed viticultural area 
covers approximately 190-square miles (121,600 acres) and contains 229 
acres of commercial vineyards and 12 wineries.
    In July 2009, Ms. Martin submitted to TTB a modification to the 
proposed Middleburg Virginia viticultural area boundary line in order 
to include several additional vineyards within the proposed 
viticultural area. The modification increased the size of the proposed 
viticultural area by 1,920 acres in the Burnt Mill Run area, east of 
Zulla, on the USGS Rectortown map. According to the petitioner, the 
additional acreage has the same distinguishing features as the 
originally proposed viticultural area. With the petitioner's modified 
boundary line, the proposed Middleburg Virginia viticultural area 
contains 251 acres of commercial grape growing in 10 vineyards and 14 
wineries. With the petitioner's agreement, TTB also made several small 
modifications to the originally-proposed boundary line in order to 
better match the provided maps with the petition's narrative boundary 
description. These changes were made in the vicinity of the town of 
Marshall and Little Cobbler Mountain and near the hamlet of Airmont 
along Route 734 and added approximately 5 square miles (3,200 acres) to 
the proposed viticultural area. TTB notes that the proposed 
viticultural area does not overlap or otherwise affect any established 
or proposed American viticultural area.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

    TTB published Notice No. 123 in the Federal Register on November 8, 
2011 (76 FR 69198), proposing to establish the Middleburg Virginia 
viticultural area. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the 
petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for 
the proposed viticultural area. The distinguishing features of the 
proposed viticultural area include climate, topography, geology, and 
soil. The notice also compared the distinguishing features of the 
proposed viticultural area to the surrounding area. TTB estimates that 
the proposed Middleburg Virginia viticultural area, as described in 
Notice No. 123, contains approximately 198-square miles (or 126,720 
acres). For a description of the evidence relating to the name, 
boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area 
see Notice No. 123.
    In Notice No. 123, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the 
name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in 
support of the petition. The comment period was scheduled to close on 
January 9, 2012. During the comment period, the Loudoun Wine Growers 
Association submitted a request to extend the comment period (comment 
12), claiming that their members had been

[[Page 56546]]

unaware of the proposal. In response to the request, Ms. Rachel E. 
Martin, who filed the original petition to establish the Middleburg 
Virginia viticultural area, submitted a comment (comment 23) that 
expressed opposition to the extension of the comment period. In the 
interest of providing the public with a full opportunity to comment on 
the proposed rulemaking, TTB issued Notice No. 123A, which extended the 
comment period until February 27, 2012 (77 FR 2027, January 13, 2012).
    Excluding the two comments received regarding the extension of the 
comment period, TTB received 26 comments in response to Notice No. 123 
during both the original and extended comment period. The commenters 
included 17 self-identified wine industry members, including growers 
and vintners; 3 commenters who did not list any affiliation; 2 food and 
wine writers; Ms. Martin, the petitioner, who submitted two additional 
comments; Virginia's Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry, on behalf 
of the Commonwealth; and a soil scientist.

Comments in Support of Establishing the Petitioned-for AVA

    Fifteen of the commenters unequivocally support the proposed 
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area (comments 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25). These commenters included 10 self-
identified wine industry members, including growers, vintners, and a 
wine exporter; two food and wine writers; the Secretary of Agriculture 
and Forestry for the Commonwealth of Virginia; and two commenters who 
stated no affiliation. Several of the comments specifically supported 
the evidence that was presented in the petition and described in Notice 
No. 123. For instance, comment 7, from a winery operator within the 
petitioned-for viticultural area, states that the petition was ``well 
researched'' and accurately describes the ``unique geographical and 
agricultural'' nature of the region. Comment 9, from a local winemaker 
and grape grower, applauds the petition as ``the most comprehensive I 
have ever seen related to a Virginia AVA'' and believes it effectively 
describes the microclimate of the area. Comment 17, from a grower to 
the west and outside of the petitioned-for viticultural area, notes 
that ``[the] features of the lands identified in this AVA are clearly 
distinctive from the valley in which we grow grapes.'' Comment 22, from 
a local grower, supports the boundaries of the petitioned-for 
viticultural area, stating that ``[the] area defined accurately depicts 
the consistent grape-growing area, which varies measurably from the 
surrounding area.'' In comment 24, a wine writer states that the 
petitioned-for viticultural area ``comprises a contiguous and distinct 
microclimate that is distinct from the surrounding area.'' Finally, 
comment 25, from a viticultural consultant who has worked with growers 
in the region, believes the petitioned-for viticultural area should be 
established and become ``one of what should eventually be many AVAs 
based on specific geographic parameters,'' and describes the varied 
elevations within the boundaries as resembling the elevation variations 
found within the established Napa Valley and Monticello viticultural 
areas.
    An additional comment (comment 26) supports the establishment of 
the proposed viticultural area and also requests a boundary 
modification to include the commenter's vineyard in the proposed 
viticultural area. The modification request is discussed later in this 
document.

Comment in Opposition of Establishing the Petitioned-for AVA

    Comment 27 expressly opposes the establishment of the proposed 
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area because ``[t]here are sufficient 
viticultural areas,'' and many of the existing viticultural areas are 
``underutilized.'' The comment states that ``[a]dding yet another 
designation reduces the intrinsic value of said designation'' and urges 
rejecting ``this and future applications.''
    TTB notes that under its regulations the number of established 
viticultural areas and utilization rate of the designations are not 
factors that determine whether or not a viticultural area should be 
established. TTB does not believe these factors are determinative as to 
whether the use of a viticultural area name on a label as an 
appellation of origin would provide adequate information about the 
identity and origin of the product or would be misleading.

Soil Scientist Comment

    Alex Blackburn, the soil scientist whose analysis was relied upon 
and cited in the petition, also submitted a comment (comment 5) to 
clarify two statements attributed to him in the petition and Notice No. 
123. Mr. Blackburn first explained that although the topography section 
of Notice No. 123 states that fairly level terrain, like that found in 
the southern region of the proposed viticultural area, is an important 
characteristic for a vineyard site, steeper parcels can be prepared and 
managed for use as vineyards and may have ``significant advantages 
concerning the production of quality grapes.'' Secondly, Mr. Blackburn 
noted that the soils section of Notice No. 123 describes the 
Purcellville, Tankerville, Philomont, and Middleburg soils of the 
proposed viticultural area as being ``among the best in the Blue Ridge 
Physiographic Province for fruit production, and grapevines grown in 
these soils have better quality with few vigor problems'' because they 
are ``lower in natural fertility and in available water capacity'' than 
the soils of the region outside the proposed viticultural area. Mr. 
Blackburn clarified that while the statement may apply to the 
Tankerville and Philomont soils, Purcellville soils ``are often 
vigorous due to high natural fertility and plant available water,'' and 
the Middleburg soils are very deep and fertile but are located in 
drainage swales that are generally not recommended for the production 
of quality grapes.
    Section 9.12(a)(3) requires a petition to include a description of 
the common features of a proposed viticultural area and how those 
features are distinctive from the features associated with adjacent 
areas outside the proposed viticultural area boundary. TTB agrees that 
Mr. Blackburn's comments clarify the statements attributed to him in 
the petition and Notice No. 123, but these clarifications do not affect 
the evidence supporting the conclusion that the soil and terrain within 
the proposed viticultural area are distinguishable from the surrounding 
area.

Comments Concerning the Name of the Proposed Viticultural Area

    Four comments from local vineyard owners (comments 3, 8, 10, and 
14) object to the name of the proposed viticultural area, claiming that 
the name ``Middleburg Virginia'' does not represent the entire region 
within the proposed viticultural area, particularly the portion within 
northern Loudoun County. TTB notes that none of these comments 
expressly opposes the establishment of the proposed viticultural area.
    Comment 3 proposes the alternative names of ``Northern Virginia'' 
and ``Greater Loudoun'' and suggests that the name ``Middleburg 
Virginia'' might be appropriate if the size of the proposed 
viticultural area was reduced to encompass a much smaller area around 
the town of Middleburg. Comment 8 states that the region of northern 
Loudoun County has ``no historical or geographical association with the 
town of Middleburg,'' and offered the name ``Northern Piedmont'' as an 
alternative. Comment 10 states that the proposed viticultural area is 
too

[[Page 56547]]

large for the name ``Middleburg Virginia'' to apply to the entire area, 
and suggests the proposed viticultural area be called ``Northern 
Virginia Piedmont.'' Comment 14 also questions whether the proposed 
name applies to the entire region within the proposed viticultural 
area, but supports the establishment of a viticultural area in the 
region and agrees with the proposed boundary. In response to these 
concerns, Ms. Martin, the petitioner, submitted a comment (comment 13) 
reiterating her belief that the proposed name is applicable to the 
entire region that would be included in proposed viticultural area.
    In response to these comments, TTB notes that Sec.  9.12(a)(1) 
requires a petition to provide evidence that currently and directly 
associates a name with the proposed viticultural area, and that the 
area be known locally or nationally by that name. As stated in Notice 
No. 123, the evidence provided with the petition indicates that local 
residents and businesses within the proposed viticultural area use the 
name ``Middleburg Virginia,'' and that the name ``Middleburg Virginia'' 
accurately describes the general region in which the proposed 
viticultural area is located rather than only the town of Middleburg. 
Although the three commenters claim that the proposed ``Middleburg 
Virginia'' name does not apply to the entire proposed viticultural 
area, they offered no evidence to refute the name evidence provided in 
the petition and Notice No. 123. Additionally, the commenters did not 
submit any evidence in support of the alternative proposed names that 
they assert more accurately describe the entire proposed viticultural 
area than the ``Middleburg Virginia'' name.

Comments Proposing Changes to the Boundary

    Four comments (comments 2, 10, 15 and 26) suggest modifications to 
the proposed boundary line. Comment 2 suggests adjusting the proposed 
western portion of the boundary line to coincide with the eastern 
boundary of the established Shenandoah Valley viticultural area farther 
to the west, in order to eliminate a 3-mile wide ``gap'' between the 
proposed viticultural area and the Shenandoah Valley viticultural area. 
Comment 2 further states that the boundary modification would be 
justified because the soil characteristics and growing conditions of 
the ``gap'' are similar to those within proposed viticultural area.
    Comment 10 claims the proposed viticultural area is too 
heterogeneous, and the hillier, mountainous areas within the proposed 
boundary should be removed because they have a different topography 
from the rest of the proposed viticultural area. Comment 15 also 
suggests modifying the proposed boundary line to remove the slopes, 
peaks, and ridges of the mountains within the proposed viticultural 
area because these higher, steeper elevations are ``separately distinct 
features from the rolling plains of Middleburg and its surrounding 
countryside.''
    One comment (comment 26) supports the establishment of the proposed 
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area and also requests that the 
boundary be adjusted to include the commenter's vineyard, which is 
adjacent to the eastern portion of the proposed boundary that follows 
State Route 662. Ms. Martin, the petitioner, in comment 28 confirmed 
that the climate, topography, geology, and soil of the property in 
question are consistent with the proposed viticultural area, and she 
stated that she supports a modification of the boundary to include the 
commenter's property.
    Section 9.12(a)(2) of the TTB regulations requires petitions to 
explain the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed 
viticultural area and to describe the commonalities within the boundary 
and explain how the region outside the proposed boundary differs. As 
noted in Notice No. 123, the boundary evidence included in the petition 
provided an adequate basis for the proposed boundary. Comments 2, 10, 
and 15 recommend significant boundary modifications; however, the 
commenters did not provide data and evidence to support their 
assertions and rebut the evidence submitted with the petition. With 
regard to comment 2, TTB notes that the terrain in the gap between the 
proposed viticultural area and the established Shenandoah viticultural 
area appears to be more mountainous and rugged than that of the 
majority of the proposed viticultural area, with higher elevations and 
steeper slopes that run in a north-south direction, compared to the 
gentle, rolling hills within the proposed viticultural area.
    With regard to the request in comment 26 to modify the eastern 
portion of the proposed boundary that follows State Route 662 so that 
the commenter's vineyard would be included within the viticultural 
area, there are several factors that support this proposed boundary 
change. First, the commenter's property is directly adjacent to the 
boundary of the proposed viticultural area. TTB notes that the proposed 
boundary was based in part on marked features on USGS maps that 
approximately track the distinguishing feature of soil types; the 
location and extent of a particular soil type can only be approximated 
on the USGS maps used for boundary directions. Second, the petitioner 
confirmed that the property shares the same distinguishing features as 
the region within the proposed viticultural area. Finally, the boundary 
modification adds only 330 acres (0.5 square miles). Accordingly, TTB 
concludes that the boundary should be modified to include the 
commenter's vineyard.

TTB Determination

    After careful review of the petition and the comments received in 
response to Notice No. 123, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the 
petitioner supports the establishment of the approximately 198-square 
mile Middleburg Virginia viticultural area. Accordingly, under the 
authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act 
of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the 
``Middleburg Virginia'' viticultural area in Loudoun and Fauquier 
Counties, Virginia, effective 30 days from the publication date of this 
document.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative boundary description of the viticultural area in 
the regulatory text published at the end of this notice.
    As discussed earlier in this document, the final boundary 
description of the viticultural area differs from the description in 
the proposed rule in order to incorporate the additional 330 acres. 
Paragraphs (c)(8) through (12) have been changed to expand the southern 
boundary slightly to include a vineyard that was adjacent to and 
outside of the viticultural area boundary proposed in Notice No. 123; 
subparagraphs (c)(9) through (c)(42) in the proposed rule were 
redesignated as paragraphs (c)(13) through (c)(46) in this final rule 
to accommodate the boundary modification.

Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and TTB lists them below 
in the regulatory text. The Leesburg Quadrangle map was added to 
accommodate the boundary modification described above.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a 
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true 
place of origin. With the establishment of this viticultural area, its 
name, ``Middleburg Virginia,'' is

[[Page 56548]]

recognized as a name of viticultural significance under 27 CFR 
4.39(i)(3). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Once this 
final rule becomes effective, wine bottlers using ``Middleburg 
Virginia'' in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label 
reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the 
product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an 
appellation of origin.
    For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a 
brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term 
identified as being viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB 
regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from 
grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, 
and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 
4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with the 
viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term and 
that name or term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in 
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain 
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or 
other viticulturally significant term appears in another reference on 
the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain 
approval of a new label.
    Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a 
viticultural area name or other term of viticultural significance that 
was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 
27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a 
viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts 
and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.

Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted 
this 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.


0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec.  9.225 to read as follows:

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas


Sec.  9.225  Middleburg Virginia.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``Middleburg Virginia''. For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, ``Middleburg Virginia'' is a term of viticultural 
significance.
    (b) Approved maps. The 14 United States Geological Survey (scale 
1:24,000) topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the 
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area are titled:
    (1) Harpers Ferry Quadrangle, West Virginia-Virginia-Maryland, 
1996;
    (2) Point of Rocks Quadrangle, Maryland-Virginia, 1970, 
photoinspected 1981;
    (3) Waterford Quadrangle, Virginia-Maryland, 1970, photorevised 
1984;
    (4) Leesburg Quadrangle, Virginia-Maryland, 1994;
    (5) Lincoln Quadrangle, Virginia-Loudoun Co., 1970, photoinspected 
1981;
    (6) Middleburg Quadrangle, Virginia, 1968, photorevised 1978, 
photoinspected 1981;
    (7) Rectortown Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photoinspected 1981;
    (8) Marshall Quadrangle, Virginia-Fauquier Co., 1970, photorevised 
1983;
    (9) Orlean Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photorevised 1983;
    (10) Upperville Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photorevised 1983;
    (11) Linden Quadrangle, Virginia, 1994;
    (12) Ashby Gap Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photorevised 1978, 
photoinspected 1981;
    (13) Bluemont Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photorevised 1979; 
photoinspected 1981; and
    (14) Purcellville Quadrangle, Virginia-Loudoun Co., 1970, 
photorevised 1984.
    (c) Boundary. The Middleburg Virginia viticultural area is located 
in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties, Virginia. The boundary of the 
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area is as described below:
    (1) The beginning point is on the Harpers Ferry map at the 
intersection of the easternmost boundary line of the Harpers Ferry 
National Historical Park and the south bank of the Potomac River in 
Loudoun County, Virginia. From the beginning point, follow the south 
bank of the Potomac River easterly (downstream) for approximately 8.2 
miles, crossing onto the Point of Rocks map, to the mouth of Catoctin 
Creek; then
    (2) Proceed southwesterly (upstream) along the meandering Catoctin 
Creek for approximately 4 miles to State Route 663 (locally known as 
Taylorstown Road) at Taylorstown; then
    (3) Proceed easterly on State Route 663 for approximately 0.1 mile 
to State Route 665 (locally known as Loyalty Road) in Taylorstown; then
    (4) Proceed southerly on State Route 665 for approximately 5.4 
miles, crossing onto the Waterford map, to State Route 662 on the south 
side of Waterford; then
    (5) Proceed southerly on State Route 662 for approximately 2.5 
miles to State Route 9 (locally known as Charles Town Pike) near 
Paeonian Springs; then
    (6) Proceed southerly on State Route 9 (Charles Town Pike) for 
approximately 0.7 mile, crossing over State Route 7 (locally known as 
Harry Byrd Highway), to State Business Route 7 (locally known as E. 
Colonial Highway); then
    (7) Proceed westerly on State Business Route 7 (E. Colonial 
Highway) for approximately 0.4 mile to the continuation of State Route 
662 (locally known as Canby Road); then
    (8) Proceed southerly on State Route 662 (Canby Road) for 
approximately 0.75 miles to an unnamed, unimproved road near the marked 
701-foot elevation; then
    (9) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line for approximately 0.4 
miles, crossing onto the Leesburg map, to the northern terminus of an 
unnamed light-duty road known locally as Gore Lane; then
    (10) Proceed southerly along Gore Lane for approximately 0.7 miles 
to State Route 820; then
    (11) Proceed southwesterly along State Route 820 for approximately 
0.68 miles, crossing onto the Lincoln map, to State Route 622 (Canby 
Road); then
    (12) Proceed southwesterly on State Route 622 (Canby Road) for 
approximately 2 miles to the intersection with State Route 729; then
    (13) Proceed southwesterly on State Route 729 for approximately 2.8 
miles to the State Route 729 bridge at North Fork Creek; then

[[Page 56549]]

    (14) Proceed southeasterly (downstream) along the meandering North 
Fork Creek for approximately 4 miles to the confluence of North Fork 
Creek with Goose Creek; then
    (15) Proceed southwesterly (upstream) along the meandering Goose 
Creek for approximately 5.6 miles to State Route 734 at Carters Bridge; 
then
    (16) Proceed southeasterly on State Route 734 for approximately 2.4 
miles, crossing onto the Middleburg map, to State Route 629; then
    (17) Proceed southerly on State Route 629 for approximately 1 mile 
to the road's intersection with U.S. Route 50 at Benchmark (BM) 341 at 
Dover, then continue in a straight line due south for approximately 150 
feet to the Little River; then
    (18) Proceed southwesterly (upstream) along the meandering Little 
River for approximately 8 miles to the State Route 626 bridge at 
Halfway; then
    (19) Proceed northwesterly on State Route 626 for approximately 0.3 
mile to State Route 706, and then continue northwesterly on State Route 
706 for approximately 1.6 miles, crossing onto the Rectortown map, to 
Burnt Mill Run; then
    (20) Proceed west-southwesterly (upstream) along Burnt Mill Run for 
approximately 0.4 mile to State Route 705; then
    (21) Proceed south-southwesterly on State Route 705 for 
approximately 0.5 mile to State Route 715; then
    (22) Proceed west-northwesterly on State Route 715 for 
approximately 0.4 mile to State Route 709 at Zulla; then
    (23) Proceed south-southwesterly on State Route 709 for 
approximately 4.6 miles, crossing onto the Marshall map, to Interstate 
Highway 66 (0.6 mile south of Brookes Corner); then
    (24) Proceed west-northwesterly on Interstate Highway 66 for 
approximately 4.0 miles, crossing onto the Orlean map, to State Route 
732 (locally known as Ramey Road); then
    (25) Proceed westerly on State Route 732 approximately 2 miles to 
State Route 731 (locally known as Ashville Road) near Ashville; then
    (26) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line, crossing onto the 
Upperville map, to the marked 1,304-foot peak on Little Cobbler 
Mountain, then northerly in a straight line to the marked 1,117-foot 
peak on Little Cobbler Mountain, and then continue northerly in a 
straight line to the marked 771-foot peak near the northern end of 
Little Cobbler Mountain; then
    (27) Proceed west in a straight line for approximately 2.7 miles to 
the 595-foot elevation point on State Route 724, southeast of Markham, 
and continue west in a straight line for approximately 3.1 miles, 
crossing onto the Linden map, to State Route 726 and an unnamed side 
road (near a cemetery), approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the 
intersection of State Route 726 and State Route 55 (near Belle Meade); 
then
    (28) Proceed northeasterly along State Route 726 for approximately 
0.7 mile to State Route 55; then
    (29) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line for approximately 
1.7 miles to State Route 688 at BM 629 in Wildcat Hollow; then
    (30) Proceed northerly and then northeasterly on State Route 688 
for approximately 5.5 miles, crossing over and back between the Linden 
and Upperville maps and then continuing on the Upperville map, to U.S. 
Route 17; then
    (31) Proceed northerly on U.S. Route 17 for approximately 2.0 
miles, crossing onto the Ashby Gap map, to U.S. Route 50 (just east of 
Paris); then
    (32) Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line for 
approximately 1.5 miles to the marked 797-foot elevation point located 
along State Route 618 at a fork in the road approximately 0.65 miles 
north of U.S. Route 50; then
    (33) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line for approximately 0.9 
mile to U.S. Route 50 at BM 625, which is located at a bridge over an 
unnamed branch of Panther Skin Creek; then
    (34) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line for 
approximately 2.9 miles, crossing onto the Upperville map, to the 
intersection of State Routes 712 and 710 at Kerfoot; then
    (35) Proceed southeasterly on State Route 710 for approximately 2.5 
miles, crossing onto the Rectortown map, to the State Route 710 bridge 
over Goose Creek; then
    (36) Proceed northeasterly (downstream) along the meandering Goose 
Creek for approximately 10.9 miles to State Route 626 at Bentons 
Bridge; then
    (37) Proceed northwesterly on State Route 626 for approximately 4.0 
miles, crossing onto the Bluemont map, to State Route 630 at Unison; 
then
    (38) Proceed northeasterly on State Route 630 for approximately 
0.75 mile to Dog Branch; then
    (39) Proceed northwesterly along Dog Branch for approximately 1.75 
miles to State Route 719; then
    (40) Proceed north-northeasterly on State Route 719 for 
approximately 2 miles to State Route 734 at Airmont; then
    (41) Proceed east-southeasterly on State Route 734 for 
approximately 0.7 mile to State Route 735; then
    (42) Proceed northeasterly on State Route 735 for approximately 2 
miles to State Route 725; then
    (43) Proceed north-northeasterly in a straight line for 
approximately 4.4 miles, crossing over the northwest corner of the 
Lincoln map and then onto the Purcellville map, to the intersection of 
State Routes 711 and 690, (northwest of Purcellville); then
    (44) Proceed north-northeasterly on State Route 690 for 
approximately 3.1 miles to State Route 9, then proceed east on State 
Route 9 for approximately 0.2 mile to the continuation of State Route 
690, then proceed northerly on State Route 690 for approximately 5.3 
miles, crossing onto the Harpers Ferry map, to the road's intersection 
with the 600-foot elevation line immediately south of the road's marked 
592-foot elevation point (located 0.75 mile east-northeast of the radio 
facilities at the 1,424-foot peak of Short Hill Mountain); then
    (45) Proceed northerly along the 600-foot elevation line for 
approximately 4 miles to the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park 
south boundary line; then
    (46) Proceed east and north approximately 0.75 mile along the 
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park boundary line, returning to the 
beginning point.

    Signed: July 9, 2012.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
    Approved: July 18, 2012.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2012-22596 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P