Proposed Rule2021-15053
Proposed Establishment of the Paulsell Valley 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
July 15, 2021
Issuing agencies
Treasury DepartmentAlcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Abstract
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the 34,155-acre "Paulsell Valley" viticultural area in Stanislaus County, California. The proposed AVA is not located within, nor does it contain, any other viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37265-37270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15053]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2021-0005; Notice No. 202]
RIN: 1513-AC81
Proposed Establishment of the Paulsell Valley Viticultural Area
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
establish the 34,155-acre ``Paulsell Valley'' viticultural area in
Stanislaus County, California. The proposed AVA is not located within,
nor does it contain, any other viticultural area. TTB designates
viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of
their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may
purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.
DATES: TTB must receive your comments on or before September 13, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this
proposal using the comment form for this document as posted within
Docket No. TTB-2021-0005 on the ``<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>'' website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Within that docket, you also may view copies of
this document, the related petition, supporting materials, and any
comments TTB receives on this proposal. A direct link to that docket is
available on the TTB website at <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/wine/notices-of-proposed-rulemaking">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/notices-of-proposed-rulemaking</a> under Notice No. 202. Alternatively, you may submit
comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Ruling
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW,
Box 12, Washington, DC 20005. Please see the Public Participation
section below for further information on the comments requested
regarding this proposal and on the submission, confidentiality, and
public disclosure of comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated the functions
and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions to
the TTB Administrator through Treasury Order 120-01, dated December 10,
2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003).
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9
of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as
established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow
vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or
other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its
geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2))
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes
standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs.
Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
<bullet> Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
<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 that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
<bullet> The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s)
[[Page 37266]]
showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the
proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
<bullet> A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Petition To Establish the Paulsell Valley AVA
TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram, on behalf of Rock
Ridge Ranch, proposing to establish the ``Paulsell Valley'' AVA. The
proposed AVA is located in Stanislaus County, California, and is not
within any existing AVA. Within proposed AVA, there are 3 commercial
vineyards which cover a total of approximately 826 acres. The petition
also notes that a fourth vineyard is planned for the proposed AVA and
would contain an additional 700 acres of vines. The distinguishing
features of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA include its topography,
climate, and soils.
Proposed Paulsell Valley AVA
Name Evidence
The proposed Paulsell Valley AVA is located in a valley carved by
Dry Creek in and around the unincorporated community of Paulsell,
California. The petition notes that, although the name ``Paulsell
Valley'' is not currently identified by the USGS Board on Geographic
Names or on USGS topographic maps, the name is nonetheless used to
describe the region of the proposed AVA. For example, the 1957 Soil
Survey of Eastern Stanislaus County, created by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, describes the Paulsell series
soil as being found ``along Dry Creek in the Paulsell Valley.'' \1\ A
1961 soil association map from the same Federal agency further
describes the Paulsell soil series as ``deep, clay soils on lacustrine
deposits in Paulsell Valley.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and
University of California Experiment Station, Soil Survey: Eastern
Stanislaus Area, Series 1957, No. 20, 1964, page 17.
\2\ U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and
University of California Agriculture Experiment Station, General
Soil Map: Eastern Stanislaus County, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The name ``Paulsell Valley'' has also been used extensively in
articles in the local newspaper relating to the Oakdale Irrigation
District's (OID) proposal to expand water delivery into the region of
the proposed AVA. For example, one article states, ``Additional farmers
in the Paulsell Valley east of Modesto are also interested in tapping
into OID's water supply * * *.'' \3\ Another article describes
``options for OID to deliver water to the Paulsell Valley in eastern
Stanislaus * * *.'' \4\ A third article carries the headline, ``OID
rejects request to help fund Paulsell Valley expansion study.'' \5\
Finally, an article describes the efforts of Stanislaus County farmers
``such as those in the Paulsell Valley southeast of Oakdale'' to
purchase water from the OID.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sbranti, J.N., ``Oakdale Irrigation District considers
expanding water deliveries to farms and homes,'' The Modesto Bee,
May 6, 2014. Accessed online at <a href="https://www.modbee.com/latest-news/article3164325.html">https://www.modbee.com/latest-news/article3164325.html</a>.
\4\ Sbranti, J.N., ``OID water sales plan bashed by county
advisory committee,'' The Modesto Bee, November 19, 2014. Accessed
online at <a href="https://www.modbee.com/news/special-reports/groundwater-crisis/article4025625.html">https://www.modbee.com/news/special-reports/groundwater-crisis/article4025625.html</a>.
\5\ Sbranti. J.N., ``OID rejects request to help fund Paulsell
Valley expansion study,'' The Modesto Bee, September 16, 2014.
Accessed online at <a href="https://www.modbee.com/news/local/article3172373.html">https://www.modbee.com/news/local/article3172373.html</a>.
\6\ Sbranti, J.N., ``OID to discuss selling water to outside
agencies during closed-door meeting,'' The Modesto Bee, November 4,
2014. Accessed online at <a href="https://www.modbee.com/news/local/oakdale/article3546951.html">https://www.modbee.com/news/local/oakdale/article3546951.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Evidence
The proposed Paulsell Valley AVA is located on the lowest foothills
of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, above the San Joaquin Valley floor. The
proposed northern boundary follows a series of roads and straight lines
between points to separate the proposed AVA from the fluvial valley of
the Stanislaus River. The proposed eastern boundary largely follows a
series of roads to separate the proposed AVA from the higher foothills
and mountains within the Sierra Nevada. The proposed southern boundary
is largely formed by the shoreline of the Modesto Reservoir and the
Modesto Main Canal. The proposed western boundary follows a series of
roads and straight lines between points to separate the proposed AVA
from the lower elevations of the San Joaquin Valley.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the
proposed Paulsell Valley AVA are its topography, climate, and soils.
The petition also proposed geology as a distinguishing feature of the
proposed AVA. However, based on the petition's descriptions, geology
appears to be too integral to the region's soils to be considered
separately from that feature. Therefore, TTB does not consider geology
to be a separate distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA.
Topography
According to the petition, the landscape of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA is dominated by rolling hills marked by cut arroyos, but
also interspersed with steep, isolated hills. This topography is
referred to as ``mound-intermound relief.'' Because of the mound-
intermound topography, the petition states that the fluvial valley
known as ``Paulsell Valley'' can be difficult to define in areas, as
the isolated hills do not form the typical drainage divides common to
many other fluvial valleys. Elevations within the proposed AVA are
between 140 and 612 feet, with most of the proposed AVA in the 180-400
foot range.
The topography of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA affects
viticulture. According to the petition, the gentle slopes within the
proposed AVA ensure good drainage for vineyards. The isolated nature of
higher mounds within the proposed AVA decreases shadows on the valley
floor, allowing most vineyards to receive long hours of solar
radiation. Furthermore, soils eroding off the higher slopes to the east
settle in the lower elevations of the proposed AVA and help ensure that
the soils are not leached of nutrients.
To the north of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA is the floodplain
of the Stanislaus River, which is described as a ``more traditional''
valley carved by the Stanislaus River. Along the floodplain are
alluvial terraces and fans that differ from the mound-intermound
topography of the proposed AVA. Elevations to the north of the proposed
AVA are generally below 300 feet. To the east of the proposed AVA, the
landscape transitions to the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which can rise to
several thousand feet. South of the proposed AVA is the Modesto
Reservoir. To the southwest and southeast of the proposed AVA, mound-
intermound relief similar to that of the proposed AVA is also present,
but it becomes less pronounced because the upper depositional layers
have been weathered and eroded away. Although the hills in these
regions are lower than those within the proposed AVA, the petition
states that they occur in greater frequency. West of the proposed AVA,
the terrain transitions to the San Joaquin Valley floor, which has
significantly flatter topography and elevations that are typically
below 200 feet.
Climate
According to the petition, the climate of the proposed Paulsell
Valley AVA distinguishes it from the regions to the east, west, and
southwest. Climate data was not available from the regions to the
immediate north and immediate south of the proposed AVA. The petition
first describes the growing degree day
[[Page 37267]]
(GDD) \7\ accumulations of the proposed AVA and the surrounding
regions. The petition also included GDD data from a weather station
within the Blue Oak Vineyard to the southwest of the proposed AVA.
However, because data was only available from this station from 2016
and 2017, and more complete data from the southwest region was also
provided, TTB did not include the Blue Oak Vineyard data in the
following table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2nd Ed. 1974), pages 61-64. In the
Winkler climate classification system, annual heat accumulation
during the growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines climatic
regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's
mean temperature is above 50 degrees F, the minimum temperature
required for grapevine growth.
Table 1--2017 GDD Accumulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather station location (direction from
proposed AVA) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Ridge Ranch (within)..................... 4,607 4,758 5,204 5,015 4,846 4,952
Rock Creek Vineyard (within).................. N/A N/A 4,922 4,756 4,461 4,455
Warnerville (within).......................... N/A 4,268 4,534 4,389 4,201 4,330
Oakdale (west)................................ 3,780 4,035 4,250 4,165 4,212 4,308
Denair (southwest)............................ 3,934 4,131 4,338 4,437 4,142 4,120
Green Springs (east).......................... 4,624 4,586 N/A 4,702 4,601 4,711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GDD accumulations for the proposed Paulsell Valley are higher
than those to the west of the proposed AVA within the San Joaquin
Valley, and similar to slightly higher than those of the region to the
east. The petition suggests that the differences between GDD
accumulations in the San Joaquin Valley and Paulsell Valley and the
region to the east are more the result of lower minimum temperatures on
the San Joaquin Valley floor rather than lower maximum temperatures. As
evidence, the petition provided data from within the proposed AVA and
the San Joaquin Valley on the average growing season low temperatures
for the same time period as the GDD accumulations data. Once again,
because only two years of data was available from the Blue Oak
Vineyard, TTB did not include that information in the following table.
Table 2--Average Growing Season Low Temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
minimum
Weather station location (direction from proposed AVA) temperature
(degrees
Fahrenheit)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Ridge Ranch (within)............................... 57.9
Rock Creek Vineyard (within)............................ 55.4
Warnerville (within).................................... 54.8
Oakdale (west).......................................... 53.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the petition, in the region of the proposed AVA, a
general pattern exists of precipitation increasing from west to east.
The petition included information on average precipitation amounts from
2012-2017, which is summarized in the following table.
Table 3--Annual Precipitation in Inches
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weather station location (direction from
proposed AVA) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Ridge Ranch (within)..................... N/A 8.3 N/A 9.6 17.9 24.0
Rock Creek Vineyard (within).................. N/A N/A 7.6 9.2 17.8 25.4
Warnerville (within).......................... 18.2 10.6 8.8 10.6 20.5 26.4
Oakdale (west)................................ 8.6 9.7 6.6 11.4 15.9 N/A
Denair (southwest)............................ 7.7 6.8 6.6 8.9 14.7 19.6
Green Springs (east).......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A 30.5 37.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data supports the claim that precipitation amounts generally
increase from west to east. The precipitation amounts for Oakdale,
within the San Joaquin Valley, are generally lower than those of the
proposed AVA. Although data from the Green Springs weather station was
only available from 2016 and 2017, the rainfall amounts for those two
years is significantly higher than those for the proposed AVA and the
San Joaquin Valley, as would be expected for an eastern location.
Therefore, TTB included the data in the table.
The climate of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA has an effect on
viticulture. According to the petition, temperatures impact the timing
of bud break, grape development and sugar accumulations, and harvest
dates. Hence, grapes grown within the proposed AVA experience different
bud break, flowering, veraison, and harvest dates than the regions to
the south and west which have lower GDD accumulations. Precipitation
amounts in the proposed AVA offer more soil moisture than regions in
the San Joaquin Valley, thus reducing the need for irrigation.
Additionally, the level of
[[Page 37268]]
precipitation in the proposed AVA may partly help to alleviate some of
the concerns related to certain diseases and the accumulation of excess
juice that can dilute grape flavors, which may impact viticulture in
the wetter regions to the east.
Soils
According to the petition, the region of the proposed AVA was
heavily deposited by ancient volcanic activity that was primarily
pyroclastic in nature (i.e., lacking lava flow). Layers of volcanic
tuff, which is rock created from the deposition of volcanic ash instead
of from direct lava flow, form the parent material for the most common
soil types. Additionally, alluvial fans associated with volcanic
activity and significant flooding events provide an additional source
for soils within the proposed AVA. The most common soils within the
proposed AVA are the Pentz series soils, ranging from Pentz cobbly loam
to Pentz sandy loam. These soils are described as shallow, well-drained
soils that formed in material weathered from tuffaceous sediments and
are frequently found on hilly terrain. Pentz soils account from 23
percent of the soils within the proposed AVA.
Associated with the Pentz soils and common to the proposed AVA are
the Peters series soils, which account for 11 percent of the soils
within the proposed AVA. These soils are very similar to the Pentz
soils, but occur on nearly-level to steep terrain. The Peters-Pentz
complex is also present within the proposed AVA. The petition defines a
complex as similar soil types mixed at such a scale that they are not
defined as one type or the other. The Peters-Pentz complex makes up a
little more than 22 percent of the soils within the proposed AVA.
Other soil series of note within the proposed AVA are the Keyes,
Raynor, and Paulsell series. Keyes soils comprise 10 percent of the
soils within the proposed AVA, while Raynor and Paulsell soils make up
8 and 7 percent, respectively. Keyes soils are formed on material
weathered from basic andesitic sediment and are found on alluvial fans
and terraces or in mound-intermound relief. Raynor clay is formed from
andesitic mudstone, while Paulsell clay is an alluvial soil formed from
former lake sediment.
The petition notes that Peters, Pentz, and Keyes soils are all
found in the regions to the west and southeast of the proposed AVA, as
tuffaceous and fluvial deposits are not limited to the proposed AVA.
Raynor and Paulsell soils are also found elsewhere. However, the
petition states that sharp contrasts in soils exist to the north,
northeast, and south of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA. To the
northeast, the Amador and Auburn series are more common. These soils
are formed from tuffaceous sediments, similar to the Peters and Pentz
soils. The Auburn soil, however, has metamorphic parent material,
specifically amphibolite schist. Other soils in the regions to the
northeast of the proposed AVA are derived from metamorphosed igneous
rock, such as the Exchequer soils, or sedimentary rock, such as the
Hornitos soils.
The petition states that to the south of the proposed AVA, Hopeton
clays, Montpellier coarse sandy loam, and Whitney sandy loams are more
common. These soils are formed from deposited sediments usually of
granitic origin, or weakly consolidated sandstone of weathered
ingenuous materials, and lack volcanic tuff material. Additionally, the
petition states that to the north of the proposed AVA, alluvial sandy
soils are found in deposits along the Stanislaus River floodplain,
including Honcut, Hanford, and Columbia series soil. Tailings and
dredge from former mining operations are also abundant along the river
floodplain.
According to the petition, the soils of a region can affect overall
grape characteristics. Holding capacity impacts how much moisture can
be utilized by the vine from rainfall. Good drainage helps prevent
soil-borne pathogens that can harm vines. The mineral content of the
soil is often credited with creating subtle distinction in flavor.
Hence, the petition asserts that soils of the Paulsell Valley, which
are derived of ash and fluvial fans mixed with ash, have a different
mineral content and holding capacity than the soils of the surrounding
regions, and have the potential to produce subtle flavor
characteristics to grapes grown in these soils.
Summary of Distinguishing Features
The following table summarizes the characteristics of the proposed
Paulsell Valley AVA and the surrounding regions.
Table 4--Summary of Distinguishing Features
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Topography Climate Soils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Paulsell Valley AVA. Rolling hills, mound- Average GDDs between Pentz, Peters, Keyes, Raynor,
intermound relief; 4,201 and 5,204; and Paulsell series and the
elevations between 140 average growing season Peters-Pentz complex;
and 612 feet. low temperatures primarily formed from
between 54.8 and 57.9 volcanic tuff and alluvial
degrees; Annual fans associated with
rainfall amounts volcanic activity and severe
between 7.6 and 26.4 flooding.
degrees.
North........................ Floodplain of the Not available........... Honcut, Hanford, and Columbia
Stanislaus River; series; alluvial sandy soils
elevations generally and tailings and dredge from
below 300 feet. former mining operations.
East......................... Sierra Nevada Mountains; Similar to slightly Amador, Auburn, Exchequer,
elevations up to lower GDD and Hornitos series; derived
several thousand feet. accumulations; higher from tuffaceous sediments,
annual rainfall amounts. metamorphic or sedimentary
parent material.
South........................ Modesto Reservoir....... Lower GDD accumulations; Hopeton clays, Montpellier
temperature; lower coarse sandy loam, and
annual rainfall amounts. Whitney sandy loams; formed
from deposited sediments of
granitic origin or weakly
consolidated sandstone of
weathered ingenuous
materials; lack volcanic
tuff.
West......................... San Joaquin Valley; Lower GDD accumulations; Similar to proposed AVA.
significantly flatter lower average growing
terrain; elevations season low temperature;
typically below 200 lower annual rainfall
feet. amounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37269]]
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 34,155-acre
``Paulsell Valley'' AVA merits consideration and public comment, as
invited in this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA
in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed
Paulsell Valley AVA boundary on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB
website, at <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.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``Paulsell
Valley,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance
under Sec. 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The
text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently,
wine bottlers using ``Paulsell Valley'' in a brand name, including a
trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine,
would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the
viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin if this proposed
rule is adopted as a final rule.
The approval of the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA would not affect
any existing AVA. If approved, the establishment of the proposed
Paulsell Valley AVA would allow vintners to use ``Paulsell Valley'' as
an appellation of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the
proposed AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the
appellation.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on
whether TTB should establish the proposed Paulsell Valley AVA. TTB is
interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the
name, boundary, topography, climate, soils, and other required
information submitted in support of the AVA petition. Please provide
any available specific information in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Paulsell Valley AVA on wine labels that include the term
``Paulsell Valley'' as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine
Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether
there will be a conflict between the proposed area names and currently
used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise,
the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any
anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA
will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also
interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for
example, by adopting a modified or different name for the proposed AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this proposal as an individual or on
behalf of a business or other organization via the <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>
website or via postal mail, as described in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. Your comment must reference Notice No. 202 and must be
submitted or postmarked by the closing date shown in the DATES section
of this document. You may upload or include attachments with your
comment. You also may submit a comment requesting a public hearing on
this proposal. The TTB Administrator reserves the right to determine
whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality and Disclosure of Comments
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the rulemaking
record and are subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any
material in your comments that you consider confidential or that is
inappropriate for disclosure.
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, the
related petition, supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives
about this proposal within the related <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> docket. In
general, TTB will post comments as submitted, and it will not redact
any identifying or contact information from the body of a comment or
attachment.
Please contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings division by email
using the web form available at <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd">https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd</a>, or by
telephone at 202-453-2265, if you have any questions regarding comments
on this proposal or to request copies of this document, its supporting
materials, or the comments received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived
from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a
proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this document.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend
title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Add Sec. 9. ___ to read as follows:
[[Page 37270]]
Sec. 9. ___ Paulsell Valley.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Paulsell Valley''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``Paulsell Valley'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The four United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
viticultural area are titled:
(1) Knights Ferry, California, 2015;
(2) Keystone, California, 2015;
(3) Cooperstown, California, 2015; and
(4) Paulsell, California, 2015.
(c) Boundary. The Paulsell Valley viticultural area is located in
Stanislaus County, California. The boundary of the Paulsell Valley
viticultural area is as described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (20) of
this section:
(1) The beginning point is on the Knights Ferry map at the
intersection of Willms Road, Kennedy Road/Sonora Road, and State
Highway 108/State Highway 120. From the beginning point, proceed
southeasterly along Willms Road for 7.2 miles, crossing over the
Keystone map and onto the Cooperstown map, to the intersection of
Willms Road and Warnerville Road at the Warnerville Cemetery; then
(2) Proceed west, then south along Warnerville Road for a total of
0.5 mile to its intersection with Crabtree Road at the railroad tracks
west of the town of Warnerville; then
(3) Proceed in a southerly direction along Crabtree Road for 6.7
miles to its intersection with the canal known locally as the Modesto
Main Canal; then
(4) Proceed westerly along the canal, crossing onto the Paulsell
map, and continuing along the canal for a total of 1.6 miles to the
Modesto Reservoir; then
(5) Proceed along the eastern shore, then northern shore, of the
Modesto Reservoir for 12.9 miles to the fifth intersection of the shore
with an unnamed, intermittent creek at the northernmost point of the
reservoir; then
(6) Proceed southwesterly in a straight line to the northern
terminus of Reservoir Road; then
(7) Proceed south-southwest along Reservoir Road for 2.2 miles to
its intersection with the 200-foot elevation contour; then
(8) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.2 miles to the
intersection of Hazeldean Road and Tim Bell Road; then
(9) Proceed north along Tim Bell Road for 3.1 miles to its
intersection with Claribel Road south of the town of Paulsell; then
(10) Proceed west along Claribel Road for 2.4 miles, crossing
Cashman Creek, to the intersection of the road with the 260-foot
elevation contour; then
(11) Proceed north in a straight line for 2 miles to the
intersection of Warnerville Road and the 300-foot elevation contour
east of Cashman Creek; then
(12) Proceed northeast in a straight line, crossing onto the
Knights Ferry map and continuing for a total of 1.1 miles to the
intersection of Fogarty Road and a railroad track; then
(13) Proceed east in a straight line for 0.9 mile to Paulsell
Lateral; then
(14) Proceed northerly along Paulsell Lateral for 2.4 miles to its
intersection with Cashman Creek; then
(15) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.3 miles to State
Highway 108/State Highway 120; then
(16) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 2.4 miles to the
third intersection of State Highway 108/State Highway 120 with the 300-
foot elevation contour; then
(17) Proceed southeast along State Highway 108/State Highway 120
for 1 mile to its intersection with the 260-foot elevation contour;
then
(18) Proceed northeasterly along the 260-elevation contour for 1.4
miles to its intersection with Sonora Road southeast of Knights Ferry;
then
(19) Proceed southeast along Sonora Road for 0.1 mile to its
intersection with Kennedy Road; then
(20) Proceed northeast, then east, then south along Kennedy Road/
Sonora Road for 0.4 mile, returning to the beginning point.
Signed: June 21, 2021.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: June 21, 2021.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2021-15053 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 15, 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.