[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23156-23162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09264]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2015-0005; T.D. TTB-136; Ref: Notice Nos. 149 & 149A]
RIN 1513-AC14
Establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley Viticultural Area and
Realignment of the Columbia Valley Viticultural Area
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes
the approximately 306,650-acre Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area in
portions of Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties in Idaho
and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman Counties in Washington. TTB is also
modifying the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley viticultural
area to eliminate a partial overlap with the Lewis-Clark Valley
viticultural area. The boundary modification will decrease the size of
the approximately 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley viticultural area by
approximately 57,020 acres. The Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is
not located within and does not overlap any other viticultural area.
TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe
the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify
wines they may purchase.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 20, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol
[[Page 23157]]
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant
to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6
U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through
Treasury Department Order 120-01 (dated December 10, 2013, superseding
Treasury Order 120-01 (Revised), ``Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau,'' dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform
the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these
laws.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9
of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as
established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow
vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or
other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the
wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2))
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes
standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs.
Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
A narrative description of the features of the proposed
AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Lewis-Clark Valley Petition
TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan Busacca, a licensed geologist
and founder of Vinitas Consultants, LLC, on behalf of the Palouse-Lewis
Clark Valley Wine Alliance and the Clearwater Economic Development
Association. The petition proposed to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA and modify the boundary of the existing Columbia Valley AVA (27 CFR
9.74). There are 3 wineries and approximately 16 commercially producing
vineyards covering more than 81 acres within the proposed AVA.
According to the petition, an additional 50 acres of grapes are
expected to be planted within the next few years.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA include
its topography, climate, native vegetation, and soils. The proposed AVA
is located at the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. The
topography of the proposed AVA consists primarily of deep, V-notched
canyons, low plateaus, and bench lands formed by the two rivers. Almost
none of the proposed AVA consists of broad floodplains typically
associated with valley floors, which are susceptible to cold-air
pooling that can damage new growth and delay fruit maturation.
Elevations within the proposed AVA are below 600 meters (approximately
1,970 feet). According to the petition, within the region of proposed
AVA, elevations above 600 meters are generally too cold to support
reliable ripening of the varietals of Vitis vinifera (V. vinifera)
grapes that are grown within the proposed AVA, and winter freezes can
be hard enough to kill dormant vines. By contrast, the regions
surrounding the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA to the east, south,
southwest, and west are steep, rugged mountains with elevations ranging
from approximately 2,000 feet to over 6,300 feet. To the north of the
proposed AVA are the gently rolling hills of the Palouse high prairie,
where the elevations can reach approximately 2,800 feet.
Due to its lower elevations, the climate of the proposed Lewis-
Clark Valley is generally warmer than that of the surrounding regions
and is suitable for growing a variety of grape varietals, including
Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Merlot, and Cabernet Franc. The warm
temperatures of the proposed AVA have earned the region the nickname
``banana belt of the Pacific Northwest.'' Growing degree day (GDD)
accumulations within the proposed AVA range from 2,613 to 3,036. GDD
accumulations in the surrounding regions are all below 2,000, which is
too low for the consistent, successful ripening of most varietals of V.
vinifera grapes.
Low shrubs and perennial grasses that have deep masses of fine
roots constitute the native vegetation of the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA. The decomposition of these native grasses and their root
mats has contributed to the formation of nutrient-rich soils within the
proposed AVA. The soils are high in organic materials that promote
healthy vine growth. The majority of these soils are classified as
Mollisols soils. The Palouse region to the north of the proposed AVA
has similar native grasses, but most of the land is used for growing
wheat, which is better suited to the cooler climate of the Palouse. To
the east, south, and west of the proposed AVA, conifer trees comprise
most of the native vegetation. The understories of these forested
regions are covered with pine needle litter instead of perennial
grasses. The pine needle litter remains on the surface, so the organic
material released by the decomposition of the needles does not mix as
deeply into the soil as the material released by decaying grass root
mats. As a result, the soils of forested regions are not as high in
organic material and nutrients as the soils within the proposed AVA.
Additionally, the soils to the east, south, and west of the proposed
AVA are classified as Andisols soils, which are comprised primarily of
ash and other volcanic materials and contain only small amounts of
organic material.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 149 in the Federal Register on April 14,
2015 (80 FR 19902), proposing to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
In the document, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition
regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the
proposed AVA. The
[[Page 23158]]
document also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA
to the surrounding areas. In Notice No. 149, TTB solicited comments on
the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information
submitted in support of the petition. In addition, TTB solicited
comments on whether the information provided in the petition
sufficiently demonstrated that the distinguishing features of the
portion of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA that would overlap the
established Columbia Valley AVA are so different from those of the
established AVA that the overlapping region should be removed from the
established AVA and placed entirely within the proposed AVA. The
comment period originally closed on June 15, 2015.
In response to Notice No. 149, TTB received 37 comments during the
original comment period, 36 of which unequivocally support the
establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA, with several commenters
citing its distinct topography, climate, and soils. Many of the
commenters also stated their belief that the proposed AVA would
encourage economic growth in the Lewiston-Clarkston region. Commenters
included local vineyard and winery owners; a member of the Lewiston,
Idaho City Council; Valley Vision, a local non-profit economic
development corporation; representatives of the Clearwater Economic
Development Association; representatives of the Port of Lewiston and
the Port of Clarkston, Washington; the Idaho Wine Commission; the Dean
for Community Programs at Lewis-Clark State College; the Nez Perce
County, Idaho Planning and Building Department; and a licensed
geologist/hydrologist.
Eleven of the supporting comments also specifically support
removing the overlapping region of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
from the Columbia Valley AVA. However, only four of these comments
(comments 13, 20, 21, and 36) offer specific reasons for supporting the
boundary modification. One commenter (comment 13) reiterated the
petition's claim that the different geology of the overlapping region
created a topography of bench lands, low plateaus, and steep canyon
sides that are distinct from the plains of the Columbia Valley AVA.
Another commenter (comment 20) stated that the climate of the
overlapping region and the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA are both
``more distinctly affected by the interior mountains on the eastern
border of the proposed AVA and the soils are distinctly affected by the
decomposed granites and basalt substrates that were deposited through
centuries of alluvial outwash. . . .'' The third commenter (comment 21)
stated that the overlapping region and the proposed AVA were ``not
ravaged by the Missoula Floods as was most of the Columbia Valley.''
The fourth commenter (comment 36) stated that his experience growing
grapes in the proposed AVA supports the petition's claims that the
climate of the proposed AVA has a longer growing season and different
soils than the Columbia Valley AVA. The commenter also agreed with the
petition that the canyons of the proposed AVA and the overlapping
region are ``in stark contrast to the shallow and wide basins created
by the Columbia River in the Columbia Valley AVA.''
Proposed AVA Boundary Expansion
While supporting establishment of the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA, one
commenter proposed expanding its boundary to include an area of higher
elevations to the northeast of the proposed AVA. This acreage is
referred to in this section of the final rule as the ``proposed
expansion area'' for the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. The commenter
states he plans to develop a vineyard within the proposed expansion
area at approximately 2,800 feet in elevation (see comment 34). The
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is limited to elevations of 600 meters
(approximately 1,960 feet) and under. Arguing that viticulture is
feasible at the higher elevations of the Lewis-Clark Valley, the
commenter provided climate data from a station within the proposed
expansion area for 2012-2014. While noting that the GDD accumulations
within his proposed expansion area are lower than those within the
proposed AVA, the commenter stated they are higher than those found in
Moscow, Idaho, which is located to the north of the proposed AVA.
Climate data from Moscow was included in the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA petition. The commenter believes, therefore, that his data
shows the climate in his proposed expansion area is more similar to the
climate within the proposed Lewis-Clark AVA than the climate of the
nearby regions north of the proposed AVA, including Moscow, Idaho.
The commenter also claimed that precipitation amounts within the
proposed expansion area are similar to those within the proposed Lewis-
Clark Valley AVA, although he did not provide any non-anecdotal
evidence to support his claim. Finally, the commenter states that
although the soils in the proposed expansion area are Andisols soils,
``there is no reason to consider this [soil type] any less suitable for
viticulture'' than the Mollisols soils of the proposed AVA.
TTB has reviewed the commenter's claims and supporting evidence and
has decided not to include the proposed expansion area within the
proposed AVA for two reasons. First, TTB notes that the commenter
states that the property owner is planning to plant a vineyard, which
does not indicate that viticulture exists within the proposed expansion
area. TTB regulations require that viticulture be present within an
area proposed to be added to an AVA. See 27 CFR 9.12(c). Therefore, the
proposed expansion area cannot be added to the proposed Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA because no evidence has been provided to show that
viticulture currently takes place in the proposed expansion area.
Secondly, TTB has determined that the proposed expansion area does
not share the same climate and soils as the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA and would not be included in the proposed AVA even if viticulture
was taking place currently. With respect to climate conditions, the GDD
accumulations provided by the commenter ranged from 1,984 to 2,150,
which is a significantly lower range from the 2,613-3,036 range found
within the proposed AVA. Some grape varietals may grow successfully in
regions that have the range of GDD accumulations found in the proposed
expansion area. However, because the GDD accumulations are
significantly lower within the proposed expansion area, TTB believes
that the grapes would be growing under different climatic conditions
than are found within the proposed AVA. Although the commenter claims
that climate research and projections suggest that temperatures within
the proposed expansion area may eventually become as warm as those
within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, TTB's determinations
concerning the establishment or expansion of AVAs are based on
currently available climate data.
Regarding the soils of the proposed expansion area, the commenter
states that they are Andisols soils, which are composed largely of
volcanic material. However, the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA's soils
are primarily Mollisols soils formed from decaying grasses and their
roots. Although Andisols soils may be suitable for viticulture, the
nutrients and minerals found in volcanic soils differ from those found
in Mollisols soils and thus would create different growing conditions
for grapevines.
[[Page 23159]]
Therefore, due to both a lack of current viticulture and shared
distinguishing features in the proposed expansion area, TTB has
determined that it will not expand the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
to include the proposed expansion area described in comment 34.
Opposition to Proposed Columbia Valley AVA Boundary Realignment
TTB received one comment that supports the establishment of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA but opposes the proposed realignment of
the Columbia Valley AVA (comment 35). The commenter, the owner of a
vineyard within the proposed realignment area, stated that he believes
his continued inclusion in the Columbia Valley AVA would be beneficial
to his business and, therefore, he does not want his vineyard property
to be removed from that AVA. Instead, the commenter stated that TTB
should allow the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley to partially overlap the
Columbia Valley because ``the geology, soils and climate of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA are quite similar to those of the
Columbia Valley and mostly lay within the elevations affected by the
Missoula floods.'' The commenter did not provide any evidence to
support his claim.
Because the proposed realignment of the Columbia Valley could
potentially affect the business practices of wine industry members
within the proposed realignment area, TTB published Notice No. 149A in
the Federal Register on October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65670) to reopen the
comment period for an additional 30 days. In Notice No. 149A, TTB asked
for comments on whether the evidence provided in the petition to
establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify the
boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA adequately demonstrates that the
characteristics of the proposed realignment area are more similar to
those of the rest of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA than to the
distinguishing features of the Columbia Valley AVA. The reopened
comment period closed November 27, 2015.
Comments Received During the Reopened Comment Period
During the reopened comment period, TTB received six additional
comments on Notice No. 149. All six comments supported the proposed
realignment of the Columbia Valley AVA. Two of the comments supported
the proposed realignment but provided no additional evidence. The
remaining four comments (comments 39, 40, 41, and 42) provided
substantive evidence to support the proposed realignment.
Comment 39 was submitted by Dr. Wade Wolfe, who described himself
as one of the contributors to the original Columbia Valley AVA
petition. Dr. Wolfe states that defining the original ``east boundary
of the Columbia Valley was especially problematic'' due to that
region's cold temperatures, the lack of irrigation infrastructure for
vineyards, and the use of the herbicide 2,4-D in the wheat fields of
the Palouse. All of these factors, Dr. Wolfe states, limit the future
of viticulture in the far eastern portion of the Columbia Valley AVA.
In spite of these limiting factors, the decision was made to end the
Columbia Valley at the Washington-Idaho border. Dr. Wolfe states his
belief that a more appropriate eastern boundary would have been ``a
location near the Columbia and Garfield County line about 30 miles west
of Pullman, WA.'' At this point, the Snake River Valley narrows to very
steep slopes, and elevations rise to over 2,000 feet, making commercial
viticulture unlikely. Dr. Wolfe further stated that the narrow canyon
continues along the Snake River until the river ``intersects with SR 12
just west of Clarkston,'' where the river valley opens up again. This
intersection is along the northern border of the proposed realignment
area. Dr. Wolfe asserts that the narrow portion of the Snake River
creates a logical separation between the valley system of the Columbia
Valley AVA and the valley system of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley
AVA.
Dr. Wolfe also states that the valley system of the proposed Lewis-
Clark Valley AVA, including the proposed realignment area, is further
differentiated from the valley system of the Columbia Valley AVA by its
separate rain shadow. Marine moisture is blocked from entering the
Columbia Valley AVA by the Cascade Mountains. By contrast, the proposed
Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is in the rain shadow of the Blue Mountains and
extensions of the Rocky Mountains. This different rain shadow,
according to Dr. Wolfe, ``redefines the valley drainage of this section
of the Snake River and when combined with the Clearwater River
drainage, justifies a separate valley AVA designation.''
Comment 40 was submitted by a licensed geologist/hydrologist. The
commenter states that while the Columbia Valley AVA and the proposed
realignment area were both affected by repeated ``Ice Age outbursts''
from Lake Missoula, the effects of the floods were significantly
different in both regions. The commenter states that the floods were
backed up behind the Wallula Gap ``when twice as much floodwater
entered the gap than could actually pass through. This hydraulic dam
also temporarily reversed the flow of the Snake River to near
Lewiston.'' As a result of the build-up of water behind the Wallula
Gap, ``thick accumulations of sediment were deposited toward the center
of the backflooded Walla Walla and Yakima Valleys,'' within the current
Columbia Valley AVA.
The commenter also states that the proposed realignment area was
affected by the Bonneville Flood, which did not extend farther into the
Columbia Valley AVA. The Bonneville Flood deposited ``sediments (soils)
of a different character and composition'' into the region of the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the proposed realignment area,
including soils derived from eroded ``older sedimentary, metamorphic,
and plutonic rocks of the North American craton.'' Finally, the
commenter states that due to the ``higher relief of the canyonlands
within the Lewis-Clark Valley,'' the soils of the proposed AVA and the
proposed realignment area contain a higher percentage of ``talus and
slopewash shed off the steep canyon walls.'' The commenter claims that
these types of deposits are not common within the majority of the
Columbia Valley AVA, which contains ``broad, low-relief basins.''
Comment 41 is from a self-described local wine consumer. The
comment largely summarizes the evidence provided in the petition to
establish the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and realign the boundary
of the Columbia Valley AVA. The commenter states that the proposed
realignment area should be removed from the Columbia Valley AVA because
``from a statistical perspective,'' the vineyards within the proposed
realignment area ``would represent an outlier.'' He explains, ``If one
were to view the Columbia Valley AVA as a map scatter diagram, the vast
majority of vineyards are located in the Interstate-82 corridor between
Walla Walla and Yakima, WA.'' Approximately 100 miles separate the
nearest Columbia Valley AVA vineyard from the nearest vineyard in the
proposed realignment area, the commenter claims. Based on the lack of
vineyards between Interstate 82 and the proposed realignment area, the
commenter believes that the current boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA
extends too far east, and the southeastern Columbia Valley AVA boundary
should be modified to place the proposed realignment area solely in the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA.
[[Page 23160]]
Comment 42 was submitted by Dr. Alan Busacca, who submitted the
proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA petition. Dr. Busacca reiterated Dr.
Wolfe's statement from comment 39 that the point where the Snake River
narrows forms a logical division between the Columbia Valley AVA and
the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. Dr. Busacca further reiterates
that the topography of the proposed realignment area and the proposed
AVA, which is described as a ``unique, almost bowl-like set of plateaus
and benches,'' is distinctly different from the topography of the
Columbia Valley AVA. Dr. Busacca also states that if the climate,
topography, and geology of the proposed realignment area are similar to
the Columbia Valley AVA, as the opposing commenter claims, then the
soils would also be similar, since those three features affect the
formation of soil. However, Dr. Busacca states that of the 80 soils
found within both the proposed AVA and the proposed realignment area,
fewer than 8 also occur in the main grape-growing regions of the
Columbia Valley AVA. Therefore, Dr. Busacca claims that the small
number of shared soils demonstrates that the proposed realignment area
does not share similar topographic, geologic, and climatic
characteristics with the Columbia Valley AVA.
Finally, Dr. Busacca addresses the opposing commenter's statement
that the proposed realignment area and the Columbia Valley AVA were
both affected by the Missoula Floods. Dr. Busacca says that while the
floodwaters did reach the proposed AVA, the waters had travelled almost
100 miles upstream along the Snake River, against the flow of the
river. As a result, within the proposed AVA, the floods ``caused almost
no erosion, left little sediment behind, and thus did not today create
more than a few tens of acres of unique terroir on small patched [sic]
of flat land just above river level.'' By contrast, within the Columbia
Valley AVA, the floods created the ``scabland'' regions and built up
large deposits of ``gravel, sand and silt up to hundreds of feet deep.
. . . A whisper and a whimper of such effects totaling a hundred acres
or two are all that these floods caused in the Lewiston-Clarkston
area.''
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition and the 43 comments in total
received in response to Notices No. 149 and No. 149A, TTB finds that
the evidence provided by the petitioner and the commenters supports the
establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and the realignment of the
boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA, in portions of Washington and
Idaho. The realignment is in accordance with TTB's determination that
the canyon-and-bench topography and Mollisols soils of the realignment
area are more similar to the features of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA
than to the broad, rolling floodplains and Aridisols soils of the
Columbia Valley AVA. Therefore, TTB is removing the realignment area
from the Columbia Valley AVA and placing it entirely within the Lewis-
Clark Valley AVA, as described in Notice No. 149. These determinations
are made in accordance with the authority of the FAA Act, section
1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as well as parts 4 and 9
of the TTB regulations, and are effective 30 days from the publication
date of this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of the boundary of the Lewis-Clark
Valley AVA and the modification of the boundary of the Columbia Valley
AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a
brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine
must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that
name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR
4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name
and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another
reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler must obtain
approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand
name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label
approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
With the establishment of this AVA, its name, ``Lewis-Clark
Valley,'' is recognized as a name of viticultural significance under
Sec. 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text
of the regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers
using the name ``Lewis-Clark Valley'' in a brand name, including a
trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine,
must ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an
appellation of origin.
Transition Period
Once this final rule to establish the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to
modify the boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA becomes effective, a
transition rule will apply to labels for wines produced from grapes
grown in the portion of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA that was formerly
within the Columbia Valley AVA. A label containing the words ``Columbia
Valley'' in the brand name or as an appellation of origin may be used
on such wine bottled for up to two years from the effective date of
this final rule, provided that such label was approved prior to the
effective date of this final rule and that the wine conforms to the
standards for use of the label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in
effect prior to the final rule. At the end of this two-year transition
period, if a wine is no longer eligible for labeling with the Columbia
Valley name (e.g., less than 85 percent of the wine is derived from
grapes grown in the Columbia Valley, as modified in this final rule),
then a label containing the words ``Columbia Valley'' in the brand name
or as an appellation of origin would not be permitted on the bottle.
TTB believes that the two-year period should provide adequate time to
use up any existing labels. This transition period is described in the
regulatory text for the Columbia Valley AVA published at the end of
this final rule. In this final rule, TTB has added regulatory text to
clarify that wine eligible for labeling with the Columbia Valley name
under the new boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA will not be affected
by the establishment of the Lewis-Clark Valley AVA or by this two-year
transition period.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA
name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer
acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of
[[Page 23161]]
September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this final rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27,
chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Amend Sec. 9.74 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(38) through (40)
and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 9.74 Columbia Valley.
* * * * *
(b) Approved maps. The approved maps for determining the boundary
of the Columbia Valley viticultural area are nine 1:250,000 scale
U.S.G.S. maps and one 1:100,000 (metric) scale U.S.G.S. map. They are
entitled:
(1) Concrete, Washington, U.S.; British Columbia, Canada, edition
of 1955, limited revision 1963;
(2) Okanogan, Washington, edition of 1954, limited revision 1963;
(3) Pendleton, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1954, revised 1973;
(4) Pullman, Washington, Idaho, edition of 1953, revised 1974;
(5) Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, 1:100,000 (metric) scale,
edition of 1981;
(6) Ritzville, Washington, edition of 1953, limited revision 1965;
(7) The Dalles, Oregon, Washington, edition of 1953, revised 1971;
(8) Walla Walla, Washington, Oregon, edition of 1953, limited
revision 1963;
(9) Wenatchee, Washington, edition of 1957, revised 1971; and
(10) Yakima, Washington, edition of 1958, revised 1971.
(c) * * *
(38) Then south following the Washington-Idaho State boundary on
the 1:100,000 (metric) scale Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, Oregon map
to the 600-meter elevation contour along the eastern boundary of
section 9,
R. 46 E./T. 11 N.; and then generally west following the meandering
600-meter contour to the eastern boundary of section 17, R. 45E./T.
11N.; then south following the eastern boundary of section 17 to the
southern boundary of section 17; and then west following the southern
boundaries of sections 17 and 18 to the Asotin-Garfield county line in
section 19, R. 45E./T. 11N.;
(39) Then south following the Garfield-Asotin county line to the
600-meter elevation contour; then following generally west and south in
a counterclockwise direction along the meandering 600-meter elevation
contour to Charley Creek in section 4, R. 44 E./T. 9 N.; and then west
following Charley Creek on to the township line between R. 42 E. and R.
43 E.;
(40) Then north following the township line between R. 42 E. and R.
43 E. on the 1:250,000 scale ``Pullman, Washington, Idaho'' map to
Washington Highway 128 at Peola;
* * * * *
(d) Transition period. A label containing the words ``Columbia
Valley'' in the brand name or as an appellation of origin approved
prior to May 20, 2016 may be used on wine bottled before May 21, 2018
if the wine conforms to the standards for use of the label set forth in
Sec. 4.25 or Sec. 4.39(i) of this chapter in effect prior to May 20,
2016.
0
3. Add Sec. 9.256 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.256 Lewis-Clark Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Lewis-Clark Valley''. For purposes of part 4 of this
chapter, ``Lewis-Clark Valley'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The three United States Geographical Survey
(USGS) 1:100,000 (metric) scale topographic maps used to determine the
boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area are titled:
(1) Clarkston, Wash.-Idaho-Oregon, 1981;
(2) Orofino, Idaho-Washington, 1981; and
(3) Potlatch, Idaho, 1981.
(c) Boundary. The Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area is located
in Nez Perce, Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties, Idaho, and Asotin,
Garfield, and Whitman Counties, Washington. The boundary of the Lewis-
Clark Valley viticultural area is as follows:
(1) The beginning point is located on the Clarkston map in
Washington State along the Garfield-Asotin County line at the southwest
corner of section 18, T11N/R45E. From the beginning point, proceed east
along the southern boundary line of section 18, crossing over the Snake
River, and continue along the southern boundary line of section 17,
T11N/R45E, to the southeast corner of section 17; then
(2) Proceed north along the eastern boundary line of section 17 to
the 600-meter elevation contour; then
(3) Proceed generally east-northeast along the meandering 600-meter
elevation contour, crossing into Idaho and onto the Orofino map, then
continue to follow the elevation contour in an overall clockwise
direction, crossing back and forth between the Orofino and Clarkston
maps and finally onto the Potlatch map, and then continuing to follow
the 600-meter elevation contour in a clockwise direction to the
elevation contour's intersection with the southern boundary line of
section 1, T37N/R1W, on the Potlatch map, north of the Nez Perce Indian
Reservation boundary and west of the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of
the Clearwater River) in Clearwater County, Idaho; then
(4) Cross the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork of the Clearwater
River) by proceeding east along the southern boundary line of section
1, T37N/R1E, to the southeastern corner of section 1; then by
proceeding north along the eastern boundary line of section 1 to the
southwest corner of section 6, T37N/R2E; and then by proceeding east
along the southern boundary line of section 6 to the 600-meter
elevation contour; then
(5) Proceed generally east initially, then generally south, and
then generally southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation
contour, crossing onto the Orofino map, and then continuing to follow
the elevation contour in an overall clockwise direction, crossing back
and forth between the Orofino and Potlatch maps, to the eastern
boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, on the Orofino map in Clearwater
County, Idaho; then
(6) Proceed south along the eastern boundary of section 13, T35N/
R2E, to the southeastern corner of section 13, T35N/R2E, northeast of
Lolo Creek; then
(7) Proceed west along the southern boundary line of section 13,
T35N/R2E, to the Clearwater-Idaho County line in the middle of Lolo
Creek; then
(8) Proceed generally west-northwest along the Clearwater-Idaho
County line (concurrent with Lolo Creek) to the Lewis County line at
the confluence of Lolo Creek and the Clearwater River; then
(9) Proceed generally south along the Lewis-Idaho County line
(concurrent with the Clearwater River) to the northern boundary line of
section 23, T35N/R2E; then
(10) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 23,
T35N/R2E, to the 600-meter elevation contour; then
[[Page 23162]]
(11) Proceed generally northwest along the meandering 600-meter
elevation contour, crossing onto the Potlatch map and then back onto
the Orofino map and continuing generally southwest along the 600-meter
elevation contour to the common T32N/T31N township boundary line along
the southern boundary line of section 35, T32N/R5W, south of Chimney
Creek (a tributary of the Snake River) in Nez Perce County, Idaho; then
(12) Proceed west along the common T32N/T31N township boundary
line, crossing Chimney Creek, to the Idaho-Washington State line
(concurrent with the Nez Perce-Asotin County line) at the center of the
Snake River; then
(13) Proceed generally southeast along the Idaho-Washington State
line in the Snake River to the northern boundary line of section 29,
T31N/R5W; then
(14) Proceed west along the northern boundary line of section 29,
T31N/R5W, to the 600-meter elevation contour, northeast of Lime Hill in
Asotin County, Washington; then
(15) Proceed generally west and then generally south-southwest
along the meandering 600-meter elevation contour to the southern
boundary line of section 25, T7N/R46E; then
(16) Proceed west along the southern boundary lines of section 25
and 26, crossing onto the Clarkston map, and continuing along the
southern boundary lines of section 26 to the 600-meter elevation
contour west of Joseph Creek; then
(17) Proceed southeast along the meandering 600-meter elevation
contour to the western boundary line of section 34, T7N/R46E; then
(18) Proceed north along the western boundary lines of sections 34
and 27, T7N/R46E, crossing over the Grande Ronde River, to the 600-
meter elevation contour; then
(19) Proceed generally northeast along the meandering 600-meter
elevation contour and continue along the 600-meter elevation contour in
a clockwise direction, crossing back and forth between the Clarkston
and Orofino maps, until, on the Clarkston map, the 600-meter elevation
line intersects the Garfield-Asotin County line for the third time
along the western boundary of section 19, T11N/R45E; and then
(20) Proceed north along the Garfield-Asotin County line, returning
to the beginning point.
Signed: March 28, 2016.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: April 15, 2016.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-09264 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P