[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33638-33642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2020-0008; T.D. TTB-180; Ref: Notice No. 193]
RIN 1513-AC58


Establishment of the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 
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 5,850-acre ``Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon'' 
viticultural area in Polk County, Oregon. The viticultural area is 
located entirely within the existing Willamette Valley 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 July 5, 2022.

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 
provisions pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002, as codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In addition, the Secretary of the 
Treasury has delegated certain administrative and enforcement 
authorities to TTB through Treasury Order 120-01.
    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 to TTB 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 allows any interested 
party to 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 to establish or modify 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;
     If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or 
overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the 
attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing 
AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the 
existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition;
     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.

Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon Petition

    TTB received a petition from the representatives of the vineyards 
and wineries within the proposed AVA, proposing to establish the 
``Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon'' AVA. The proposed AVA is located 
in Polk County, Oregon, and lies entirely within the established 
Willamette Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.90). Within the approximately 5,850-
acre proposed AVA, there are 10 commercial vineyards which cover a 
total of approximately 531 acres, as well as 2 wineries. The petition 
notes that vineyard owners also plan to expand 4 of the existing 
vineyards by a total of 164 acres. The distinguishing features of the 
proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA are its topography, 
climate, geology, and soils.
    The proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA is located on a

[[Page 33639]]

small mountain in the hills of the Willamette Valley. Elevations range 
from 260 feet at the foot of the mountain to 835 feet at the peak. The 
proposed AVA is surrounded in all directions by lower elevations of the 
Willamette Valley floor. The petition states that the proposed AVA's 
elevated location protects the proposed AVA from the higher wind speeds 
that occur on the valley floor.
    According to the petition, temperatures within the proposed Mount 
Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA are cooler than the regions to the east 
and north-northeast, with average annual growing degree day \1\ (GDD) 
accumulation of 2,543 GDDs. The average annual GDD accumulations favor 
the production of grape varietals such pinot noir, pinot gris, and 
chardonnay, which are the most commonly grown grape varietals within 
the proposed AVA. In comparison, GDD accumulations in the city of 
Salem, approximately 18 miles east of the proposed AVA, averaged 2,903 
GDDs, and the town of McMinnville, 23 miles to the north-northeast of 
the proposed AVA, averaged 2661 GDDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Albert J. Winkler et al., General Viticulture (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 2nd. ed. 1974), pages 61-64. In the 
Winkler scale, the GDD regions are defined as follows: Region I = 
less than 2,500 GDDs; Region II = 2,501-3,000 GDDs; Region III = 
3,001-3,500 GDDs; Region IV = 3,501-4,000 GDDs; Region V = greater 
than 4,000 GDDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed AVA also has lower average wind speeds than the 
regions to the east and north-northeast. The average wind speed within 
the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA is 2.3 miles per 
hour (mph), while winds in the city of Salem average 6.1 mph, and winds 
in the town of McMinnville average 5.2 mph. According to the petition, 
high winds can break new grapevine shoots and desiccate grapes.
    The petition states that the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 
Oregon AVA is bounded topographically around a unique geological 
formation that only occurs within the proposed AVA. The parent material 
of the mountain comes from the Siletz River volcanics of the middle and 
lower Eocene and Paleocene (approximately 40 to 60 million years ago). 
The rocks are zeolotized (contain aluminum) and veined with calcite, 
and were sea floor mountains. The Siletz River volcanics are exposed 
near the summit of Mount Pisgah, where it directly affects the soils 
and viticulture. The Siletz River volcanics are the oldest rocks in the 
Willamette Valley, and occur below marine sediments six miles from the 
Willamette River, which makes the proposed AVA unique, according to the 
petition. Because the geology of the proposed AVA is different from 
that of the surrounding regions, grapevine roots within the proposed 
AVA will have access to a different set of minerals and nutrients than 
grapevines grown elsewhere.
    The geology of the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA 
also affects the composition of the soils. According to the petition, 
97.2 percent of the soils within the proposed AVA contain colluvium or 
residuum as parent material, both of which are ancient sedimentary 
soils. The only alluvial parent material in the area is old alluvium 
coming from the Missoula Flood, which comprises 2.1 percent of the 
proposed AVA. The soils generally have fine to coarse grains with 
calcareous concretions and are carbonaceous and micaceous. The main 
soil series in the proposed AVA are silty clay loams, which make up 
92.1 percent of all soils within the proposed AVA and include the 
Bellpine, Jory, Nekia, Rickreall, and Willakenzie soil series. The 
soils are classified as well drained but also have adequate water-
holding capabilities, which enables dry farming within the proposed 
AVA.
    By comparison, the areas surrounding the proposed Mount Pisgah, 
Polk County, Oregon AVA all contain alluvial deposits from the recent 
quaternary period, instead of sedimentary deposits. To the north of the 
proposed AVA, soils are clayey alluvium and do not drain as well as the 
soils within the proposed AVA. To the west of the proposed AVA, the 
soils are alluvial loam and are more poorly drained. To the south of 
the proposed AVA, soils are silty alluvial. To the east of the proposed 
AVA, soils are silty alluvium and alluvial loam and also do not drain 
as well as the soils in the proposed AVA.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

    TTB published Notice No. 193 in the Federal Register on October 1, 
2020 (85 FR 61907), proposing to establish the Mount Pisgah, Polk 
County, Oregon AVA. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the 
petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for 
the proposed AVA. The notice also compared the distinguishing features 
of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas. For a detailed 
description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and 
distinguishing features of the proposed AVA, and for a detailed 
comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to the 
surrounding areas, see Notice No. 193.
    In Notice No. 193, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the 
name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of 
the petition. In addition, given the proposed AVA's location within the 
Willamette Valley AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence 
submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the 
proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the established AVA. 
TTB also requested comments on whether the geographic features of the 
proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the established Willamette 
Valley AVA that the proposed AVA should no longer be part of the 
established AVA. The comment period closed November 30, 2020.
    In response to Notice No. 193, TTB received 19 comments. Commenters 
included local vineyard and winery owners, winemakers, and vineyard 
managers. All 19 of the comments support the establishment of the 
proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA.

Proposal To Modify Proposed AVA Name

    One comment (comment 7) supports the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk 
County Oregon AVA but also suggests modifying the name. The comment 
claims that, while other regions known as ``Mount Pisgah'' exist in 
Oregon, those regions are not conducive to viticulture. Therefore, the 
comment recommends shortening the proposed name to ``Mount Pisgah.'' 
Two of the other comments support this idea of a shortened name 
(comments 13 and 15), with one of the comments (comment 15) noting that 
the other regions in Oregon known as Mount Pisgah are located on public 
lands and are unlikely to be available for commercial viticulture.
TTB Response
    One of the purposes of designating AVAs is to provide consumers 
more information about the origin of the grapes used to make the wine. 
Because there are at least three geographic features in Oregon known as 
``Mount Pisgah,'' TTB believes that it is important to clarify to which 
feature the wine label refers. Although the commenters state that the 
proposed AVA is the only ``Mount Pisgah'' where viticulture takes place 
in Oregon, consumers might not be aware of this and might assume that 
the AVA name refers to one of the other regions. Therefore, TTB 
believes that including the county in the proposed AVA name is 
necessary in order to reduce the

[[Page 33640]]

chance of consumer confusion. Additionally, because Polk County is a 
common county name within the U.S., and multiple States have geographic 
features known as ``Mount Pisgah,'' TTB does not believe that 
shortening the proposed AVA name to ``Mount Pisgah, Polk County'' would 
sufficiently identify the proposed AVA's location. For these reasons, 
TTB is not considering establishing the AVA with an abbreviated 
shortened name.

Proposal To Expand the Proposed AVA

    One comment (comment 8) supports the establishment of the Mount 
Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA but also requests modifying the 
proposed boundary. The comment, submitted on behalf of Atlas Vineyard 
Management, Inc., requests extending the proposed AVA boundary 
southward to include a 65-acre vineyard on a neighboring hill. The 
comment claims that the climate, topography, geology, and soils of the 
proposed expansion area are similar to those of the proposed AVA. As 
evidence, the comment included information on the GDDs, mean July 
temperature, wind speeds, elevation, slope aspect, geology, and soils 
of the proposed expansion area.
    Four other comments submitted in response to Notice No. 193 address 
this boundary modification, and all four comments oppose it (comments 
11, 12, 13, and 15). Two comments (comments 11 and 15) oppose the 
proposed expansion, in part, because they claim the proposed ``Mount 
Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon'' name does not apply to the proposed 
expansion area, which is located on a separate geographic feature known 
as Fishback Hill. Several of the comments also include anecdotal 
evidence of temperature differences between the proposed AVA and the 
proposed expansion area, noting that they have encountered ice or rain 
in the region of the proposed expansion area on days when the proposed 
AVA was free of ice or rain.
    Comments 12 and 15 both address the soil evidence in the request to 
expand the proposed AVA. Both comments claim that the soils of the 
proposed AVA are, in fact, distinguishable from those of the proposed 
expansion area. Comment 12 claims that the proposed expansion area 
contains more Willakenzie soils than the proposed AVA. Comment 15 
claims that a combination of marine sediments and volcanic basalt is 
unique to the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA, as stated 
in the proposed AVA petition. The comment goes on to say that, contrary 
to the claims in the expansion proposal, there are at least five acres 
of vines planted on this combination of soils at the summit of Mount 
Pisgah. Comment 15 also states that the Spencer Formation, which the 
expansion proposal claims is a geologic formation shared by the 
proposed AVA and the proposed expansion area, stretches nearly the 
entire length of the Willamette Valley AVA. As a result, the comment 
claims the fact that the proposed AVA and the proposed expansion area 
share this underlying geologic feature is simply a coincidence and not 
a distinctive feature of the two regions.
    Finally, comment 13 addresses the GDD and wind speed data included 
in the expansion proposal. The comment notes that the 2015-2018 April/
May GDD accumulations from the proposed expansion area are lower than 
those of the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA. The 
comment states that lower GDD accumulations in these months can result 
in bud break and bloom dates that are later than in the proposed AVA. 
The comment also notes that the 2016 April/May and June/October wind 
speeds are 20 and 40 percent higher, respectively, in the proposed 
expansion area than they are in the proposed AVA.
TTB Response
    After examining the information provided, TTB has determined that 
there is not sufficient evidence to support inclusion of the proposed 
expansion area at this time. The information presented does not show 
that the proposed expansion area shares the distinguishing features or 
name evidence of the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA. 
First, TTB has determined that the comment requesting the expanded 
boundaries does not include evidence that the proposed AVA name extends 
to the proposed expansion area.
    Additionally, based on the information provided, TTB also found 
that several aspects of the climate, geologic, and soil features of the 
proposed AVA appear to be dissimilar to those of the expansion area 
proposed in comment 8. First, comment 8 included one year of wind speed 
data (2016) from within both the proposed expansion area and the 
proposed AVA and two years of data (2017-2018) from the proposed 
expansion area and two regions on the Willamette Valley floor outside 
of the proposed AVA. Although the two-year data suggests that the 
proposed expansion area has wind speeds lower than those found on the 
Willamette Valley floor, the 2016 data suggests that wind speeds in the 
proposed expansion area may be consistently higher than those within 
the proposed AVA. Without additional wind speed data from within both 
the proposed expansion area and the proposed AVA, TTB cannot determine 
that the proposed expansion area's wind speeds are similar enough to 
warrant inclusion in the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County AVA.
    Furthermore, based on the information in comment 8, the early-
season GDDs of the proposed expansion area also appear to be different 
from those of the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA. The 
comment included 2014-2016 GDD data from within the proposed expansion 
area, the proposed AVA, and two locations on the Willamette Valley 
floor. The comment also included 2017-2018 GDD data from within the 
proposed expansion area and the two locations on the valley floor, but 
not from within the proposed AVA. Although the 2014-2016 GDDs in both 
the proposed AVA and the proposed expansion area are lower than those 
found in the two locations on the valley floor, the 2014-2016 April/May 
GDD accumulations are noticeably lower in the proposed expansion area 
than in the proposed AVA. Furthermore, the 2014-2016 seasonal GDD 
accumulations for the proposed expansion area are also lower than those 
for the proposed AVA. Therefore, TTB does not believe that comment 8 
provided sufficient evidence to show that the proposed AVA and the 
proposed expansion share similar GDD accumulations.
    With regard to geologic features, comment 8 notes that the Spencer 
Formation is present beneath both the proposed expansion area and the 
proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA. However, the proposed 
AVA petition did not describe the presence of the Spencer Formation as 
a distinguishing feature. The presence of the Siletz River volcanics is 
the distinguishing geologic feature of the proposed AVA, and it does 
not appear to occur in the proposed expansion area. Therefore, TTB does 
not believe that comment 8 provided sufficient evidence to show that 
the proposed expansion area shares the distinguishing geologic feature 
of the proposed AVA.
    Based on the soil map included in the expansion request comment 
(comment 8), TTB cannot determine conclusively whether Willakenzie 
soils are more prevalent in the proposed expansion area than in the 
proposed AVA, as suggested in comment 12. However, based on the same 
map, TTB does believe that the proposed expansion area lacks the Nekia 
soils, which the proposed AVA petition states make up

[[Page 33641]]

8.1 percent of the soils in the proposed AVA. The map also appears to 
show that Rickreal soils, which comprise 7.8 percent of the proposed 
AVA soils, are not as common in the proposed expansion area, and that 
Dupee soils may be more common in the proposed expansion area than in 
the proposed AVA. For these reasons, TTB has determined that comment 8 
provided insufficient evidence to show that the proposed expansion area 
shares the distinctive soil composition of the proposed Mount Pisgah, 
Polk County, Oregon AVA.
TTB Determination
    After careful review of the petition and the comments received in 
response to Notice No. 193, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the 
petitioner supports the establishment of the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 
Oregon AVA, as originally proposed. TTB is not expanding the Mount 
Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA to include the region requested in 
comment 8, although TTB would be willing to consider a separate 
petition to establish a new AVA in that region or a separate expansion 
petition that provides the requisite name and distinguishing features 
information. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 
1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the 
TTB regulations, TTB establishes the ``Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 
Oregon'' AVA in Polk County, Oregon, effective 30 days from the 
publication date of this document.
    TTB has also determined that the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 
AVA will remain part of the established Willamette Valley AVA. As 
discussed in Notice No. 193, the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA 
shares some broad characteristics with the established AVA. For 
example, the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA and the Willamette 
Valley AVA do not contain elevations over 1,000 feet. Additionally, 
both areas contain mostly silty and clay loam soils. However, the Mount 
Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA differs from the Willamette Valley AVA 
because it is located entirely on a small mountain with elevations that 
are higher than those of the surrounding valley floor. Due to its 
higher elevations, wind speeds within the AVA are lower than in other 
parts of the Willamette Valley AVA that have lower elevations. Lastly, 
the Siletz River volcanics parent material is a unique geological 
feature which occurs within the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA 
but not within the remainder of the Willamette Valley AVA.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the Mount Pisgah, 
Polk County, Oregon AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of 
this final rule.

Maps

    The petitioners provided the required maps, and they are listed 
below in the regulatory text. The Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA 
boundary may also be viewed 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.
    With the establishment of the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 
AVA, its name, ``Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon,'' 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)). TTB is also 
designating ``Mt. Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon'' as a term of 
viticultural significance, and is allowing the word ``Mount'' to be 
abbreviated as ``Mt.'' The text of the regulations clarifies this 
point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name ``Mount (or ``Mt.'') 
Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon'' 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 AVA name as an 
appellation of origin. TTB is not designating ``Mount (or ``Mt.'') 
Pisgah,'' by itself, as a term of viticultural significance due to the 
number of locations in the United States known as Mount Pisgah. 
Therefore, wine bottlers using ``Mount (or ``Mt.'') Pisgah,'' standing 
alone, in a brand name or in another label reference on their wines 
will not be affected by the establishment of this AVA.
    The establishment of the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA will 
not affect the existing Willamette Valley AVA, and any bottlers using 
``Willamette Valley'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name 
for wines made from grapes grown within the Willamette Valley will not 
be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of 
the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA will allow vintners to use 
``Mount (or ``Mt.'') Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon'' and ``Willamette 
Valley'' as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes 
grown within the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA if the wines 
meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

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 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.

[[Page 33642]]

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec.  9.284 to read as follows:


Sec.  9.284  Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon''. The word ``Mount'' 
may be abbreviated as ``Mt.'' in the name of this AVA. For purposes of 
part 4 of this chapter, ``Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon'' and ``Mt. 
Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon'' are terms of viticultural significance.
    (b) Approved maps. The two United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the 
Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon viticultural area are titled:
    (1) Dallas, OR, 2014; and
    (2) Airlie North, OR, 2014.
    (c) Boundary. The Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon viticultural 
area is located in Polk County in Oregon. The boundary of the Mount 
Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon viticultural area is as described below:
    (1) The beginning point is on the Dallas map at the point where the 
320-foot elevation contour intersects Mistletoe Road south of the 
unnamed road known locally as SE Lewis Street. From the beginning 
point, proceed south along Mistletoe Road for approximately 2 miles to 
the road's second intersection with the 740-foot elevation contour; 
then
    (2) Proceed due west approximately 0.5 miles to the 400-foot 
elevation contour; then
    (3) Proceed south along the 400-foot elevation contour, crossing 
onto the Airlie North map, to the contour's intersection with Cooper 
Hollow Road near Fisher Reservoir; then
    (4) Proceed southeasterly along Cooper Hollow Road to its 
intersection with McCaleb Road; then
    (5) Proceed east, then northeast, then east along McCaleb Road for 
approximately 1.6 miles to its intersection with Mistletoe Road and the 
260-foot elevation contour; then
    (6) Proceed easterly along the 260-foot elevation contour until it 
intersects again with Mistletoe Road; then
    (7) Proceed east along Mistletoe Road for 0.3 mile to its 
intersection with Matney Road; then
    (8) Proceed north along Matney Road for 0.6 mile to its 
intersection with the 260-foot elevation contour at a 90 degree turn in 
the road; then
    (9) Proceed northwesterly along the 260-foot elevation contour to 
its intersection with Bursell Road; then
    (10) Proceed east along Bursell Road for 0.2 mile to its 
intersection with the 260-foot elevation contour; then
    (11) Proceed north along the 260-foot elevation contour, crossing 
onto the Dallas map, to the contour's intersection with Whiteaker Road; 
then
    (12) Proceed southeasterly along Whiteaker Road for 1.0 mile to its 
intersection with the 260-foot elevation contour at a 90 degree turn in 
the road; then
    (13) Proceed north, then west along the 260-foot elevation contour 
to its intersection with Ballard Road; then
    (14) Proceed south along Ballard Road to its intersection with the 
300-foot elevation contour; then
    (15) Proceed northwesterly along the 300-foot elevation contour, to 
its intersection with Cherry Knoll Road; then
    (16) Proceed south along Cherry Knoll Road to its intersection with 
the 320-foot elevation contour; then
    (17) Proceed northwesterly along the 320-foot elevation contour, 
returning to the beginning point.

    Signed: May 25, 2022.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.

    Approved: May 26, 2022.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2022-11715 Filed 6-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P