Rule2021-12769
Establishment of the White Bluffs Viticultural Area
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 17, 2021
Effective
July 19, 2021
Issuing agencies
Treasury DepartmentAlcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Abstract
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the 93,738-acre "White Bluffs" viticultural area in Franklin County, Washington. The White Bluffs viticultural area is located entirely within the existing Columbia 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32186-32189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12769]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2020-0004; T.D. TTB-167; Ref: Notice No. 189]
RIN 1513-AC57
Establishment of the White Bluffs 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 93,738-acre ``White Bluffs'' viticultural area in Franklin County,
Washington. The White Bluffs viticultural area is located entirely
within the existing Columbia 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 19, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated the functions
and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions to
the TTB Administrator through Treasury Order 120-01, dated December 10,
2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003).
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission 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 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:
<bullet> Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
[[Page 32187]]
<bullet> An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
White Bluffs Petition
TTB received a petition from Kevin Pogue, on behalf of local
winemakers and vineyard owners, proposing to establish the ``White
Bluffs'' AVA. The proposed AVA is located in Franklin County,
Washington, and lies entirely within the established Columbia Valley
AVA (27 CFR 9.74). Within the 93,738-acre proposed AVA, there are 9
commercial vineyards covering a total of approximately 1,127 acres,
along with 1 winery. The distinguishing features of the proposed White
Bluffs AVA are its topography, geology, soils, and climate.
The proposed White Bluffs AVA is located on a broad plateau that
rises, on average, 200 feet above the surrounding landscape. The
Ringold and Koontz Coulees divide the plateau into two distinct areas
capped by flat regions with relatively even surfaces and south-facing
slope aspects. Elevations within the proposed AVA range from 700 feet
in the coulees to approximately 1,200 feet in the northeastern section
of the proposed AVA. The majority of the proposed AVA has elevations
between 800 and 1,000 feet. By contrast, the regions surrounding the
proposed AVA are on the floor of the Columbia Valley and have lower
elevations. According to the petition, the relatively flat terrain of
the proposed AVA provides gently sloping vineyard sites. Southern
aspects allow vines to absorb more solar energy per unit area than
regions without a southern aspect. Greater solar energy absorption
promotes an earlier onset of bud break, flowering, veraison, and
harvest. The petition also states that vineyards planted on the plateau
have a longer growing season than vineyards on the valley floor, where
cold air pools and increases the risk of frost.
Beneath the proposed White Bluffs AVA is a thick layer of
sedimentary rocks called the Ringold Formation, which was formed in
lakes and rivers between 8.5 and 3.4 million years ago. The Ringold
Formation overlies Columbia River basalt bedrock. The upper part of the
Ringold Formation contains an erosion-resistant layer commonly referred
to as caliche. This layer reaches depths of at least 15 feet and limits
root penetration and the water-holding capabilities of the soil. As a
result, areas with thick layers of caliche must undergo ripping with
bulldozers to break up the caliche before planting vineyards. By
contrast, the Ringold Formation and the caliche layer are much thinner
or entirely absent in the regions surrounding the proposed AVA,
allowing roots to come into contact with the basalt bedrock and a
variety of minerals including olivine and plagioclase feldspar.
The soils of the proposed AVA derive from wind-deposited silt and
fine sand overlying sediment deposited by ice-age floods. Most of the
flood sediment is a mixture of silt and sand that settled out of
suspension in glacial Lake Lewis. The thickness of the flood sediment
gradually increases with decreasing elevation, since there were
multiple ice-age floods of varying intensity and the lower elevations
were flooded more frequently. As a result, the soil depths on the
plateau that comprises the proposed AVA are likely to be thinner than
those of the surrounding valley floor. The thinness of the soils in the
proposed AVA allows roots to reach the clay-rich Ringold Formation.
High clay content allows the soils to release water more slowly than
sandier soils, putting less stress on grapevines during dry conditions.
The petition states that the proposed White Bluffs AVA has a longer
growing season than the surrounding regions. According to the petition,
the longer growing season means that the proposed AVA is less prone to
spring frosts that can damage the vines after bud break, and is also
less likely to experience fall frosts that halt the ripening process
and delay harvest. The growing season within the proposed AVA averages
237.5 days, while the region to the north averages 200 days. The region
to the east averages 169 days, and the region to the south averages 191
days. Climate data was not available for the region to the west of the
proposed AVA.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 189 in the Federal Register on May 27,
2020 (85 FR 31723), proposing to establish the White Bluffs 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.
189.
In Notice No. 189, 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 White Bluff AVA's
location within the Columbia 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 Columbia Valley AVA that the proposed AVA should no longer
be part of the established AVA. The comment period closed on July 27,
2020.
In response to Notice No. 189, TTB received a total of two
comments. Both comments were from local wine industry members who
supported the proposed AVA. The first comment reiterated the petition's
claims of unique soil, geology, topography, and climate, which the
commenter states makes the proposed AVA a ``special area in
Washington.'' The second comment supported the proposed AVA due to its
``distinctive micro-climate, soil, and ultimately unique grape growing
character.'' Neither comment addressed the question of whether the
proposed White Bluffs AVA was so distinct that it should be removed
from the established Columbia Valley AVA.
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition and the comments received in
response to Notice No. 189, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the
petitioner supports the establishment of the White Bluffs AVA.
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
[[Page 32188]]
regulations, TTB establishes the ``White Bluffs'' AVA in Franklin
County, Washington, effective 30 days from the publication date of this
document.
TTB has also determined that the White Bluffs AVA will remain part
of the established Columbia Valley AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 189,
the White Bluffs AVA shares some broad characteristics with the
established AVA. For example, the proposed AVA and the Columbia Valley
AVA both have elevations that are generally below 2,000 feet and
geologies that contain Columbia River basalt. However, the proposed AVA
consists of an elevated plateau, whereas most of the Columbia Valley
AVA is described as a broad plain. Within the proposed AVA, the Ringold
Formation forms a layer over the basalt bedrock that is generally
thinner or not present elsewhere in the Columbia Valley. Finally,
because ice-age floods less frequently inundated the proposed AVA than
the surrounding regions of the Columbia Valley AVA, the proposed White
Bluffs AVA's soils are generally shallower than the soils in most of
the Columbia Valley AVA.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of the boundary of the White Bluffs
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. You may also view the proposed White
Bluffs Valley AVA boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website,
at <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer</a>.
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 White Bluffs AVA, its name, ``White
Bluffs,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance
under Sec. 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The
text of the regulations clarifies this point. Consequently, wine
bottlers using the name ``White Bluffs'' 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.
The establishment of the White Bluffs AVA will not affect the
existing Columbia Valley AVA, and any bottlers using ``Columbia
Valley'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made
from grapes grown within the Columbia Valley will not be affected by
the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the White
Bluffs AVA will allow vintners to use ``White Bluffs'' and ``Columbia
Valley'' as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes
grown within the White Bluffs AVA if the wines meet the eligibility
requirements for these appellations.
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.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.275 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.275 White Bluffs.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``White Bluffs''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``White Bluffs'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The 10 United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
White Bluffs viticultural area are titled:
(1) Hanford, NE, Washington, 1986;
(2) Mesa West, Washington, 1986;
(3) Wooded Island, Washington, 1992;
(4) Matthews Corner, Washington, 1992;
(5) Basin City, Washington, 1986;
(6) Eltopia, Washington, 1992;
(7) Eagle Lakes, Washington, 1986;
(8) Savage Island, Washington, 1986;
(9) Richland, Washington, 1992; and
(10) Columbia Point, Washington, 1992.
(c) Boundary. The White Bluffs viticultural area is located in
Franklin County in Washington. The boundary of the White Bluffs
viticultural area is as described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the Richland map at the intersection
of Columbia River Road and an unnamed secondary highway known locally
as Sagemoor Road. From the beginning point, proceed north along
Columbia River Road, crossing onto the Wooded Island map, to the
Potholes Canal; then
(2) Proceed west along the Potholes Canal for 150 feet to its
intersection with the shoreline of the Columbia River; then
(3) Proceed north along the Columbia River shoreline, crossing onto
the Savage Island map, to the intersection of the shoreline with the
Wahluke Slope Habitat Management boundary on Ringold Flat; then
(4) Proceed east, then generally northwesterly, along the Wahluke
Slope Habitat Management boundary to its intersection with the 950-foot
elevation contour along the western boundary of section 16, T13N/R29E;
then
(5) Proceed easterly, then generally northeasterly, along the 950-
foot elevation contour, passing over the Hanford NE map and onto the
Eagle
[[Page 32189]]
Lakes map, to the intersection of the elevation contour with an
unimproved road in the southeast corner of section 32, T14N/T29E; then
(6) Proceed east along the unimproved road for 100 feet to its
intersection with an unnamed light-duty improved road known locally as
Albany Road; then
(7) Proceed south along Albany Road, crossing onto the Basin City
map, to the road's intersection with an unnamed improved light-duty
road known locally as Basin Hill Road along the southern boundary of
section 21, T13N/R29E; then
(8) Proceed south in a straight line for 2 miles to an improved
light-duty road known locally as W. Klamath Road; then
(9) Proceed east along W. Klamath Road, crossing onto the Mesa West
map, to the road's intersection with another improved light-duty road
known locally as Drummond Road; then
(10) Proceed north along Drummond Road for 0.75 mile to its
intersection with a railroad; then
(11) Proceed easterly along the railroad to its intersection with
an improved light-duty road known locally as Langford Road in the
northeastern corner of section 4, T12N/R30E; then
(12) Proceed south along Langford Road for 0.5 mile to its
intersection with the 800-foot elevation contour; then
(13) Proceed southwesterly along the 800-foot elevation contour,
crossing onto the Eltopia map, to the contour's intersection with
Eltopia West Road; then
(14) Proceed east along Eltopia West Road to its intersection with
the 700-foot elevation contour; then
(15) Proceed southerly, then northerly along the 700-foot elevation
contour, circling Jackass Mountain, to the contour's intersection with
Dogwood Road; then
(16) Proceed west along Dogwood Road for 1.1 mile, crossing onto
the Matthews Corner map, to the road's intersection with the 750-foot
elevation contour; then
(17) Proceed southwesterly along the 750-foot elevation contour to
its intersection with Taylor Flats Road; then
(18) Proceed south along Taylor Flats Road, crossing onto the
Columbia Point map, to the road's intersection with Birch Road; then
(19) Proceed west along Birch Road for 1 mile to its intersection
with Alder Road; then
(20) Proceed south along Alder Road for 0.7 mile to its
intersection with the 550-foot elevation contour; then
(21) Proceed westerly along the 550-foot elevation contour to its
intersection with Sagemoor Road; then
(22) Proceed westerly along Sagemoor Road for 0.7 mile, crossing
onto the Richland map and returning to the beginning point.
Signed: January 4, 2021.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: January 1, 2021.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2021-12769 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 17, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.