Rule2022-11715
Establishment of the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 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 3, 2022
Effective
July 5, 2022
Issuing agencies
Treasury DepartmentAlcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 107 (Friday, June 3, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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:
<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 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;
<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.
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 <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 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
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 3, 2022.
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.