Proposed Establishment of the Candy Mountain Viticultural Area and Modification of the Yakima Valley Viticultural Area
| Citation | 84 FR 42863 |
| Record Number | 2019-17688 |
| Published date | 19 August 2019 |
| Court | Alcohol And Tobacco Tax And Trade Bureau |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 160 (Monday, August 19, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42863-42869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17688]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2019-0006; Notice No. 184]
RIN 1513-AC42
Proposed Establishment of the Candy Mountain Viticultural Area
and Modification of the Yakima 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 815-acre ``Candy Mountain'' viticultural area in Benton
County, Washington. TTB also proposes to expand the boundary of the
existing 1,093-acre Yakima Valley viticultural area by approximately 72
acres in order to avoid a partial overlap with the proposed Candy
Mountain viticultural area. Both the existing Yakima Valley AVA and the
proposed Candy Mountain AVA are located entirely within the existing
Columbia Valley AVA. 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 October 18, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this
proposal, and view copies of this document, its supporting materials,
and any comments TTB receives on it within Docket No. TTB-2019-0006 as
posted on Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov), the Federal e-
rulemaking portal. Please see the ``Public Participation'' section of
this document below for full details on how to comment on this proposal
via Regulations.gov, U.S. mail, or hand delivery, and for full details
on how to view or obtain copies of this document, its supporting
materials, and any comments related to this proposal.
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 various
authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December
10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003),
to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the
administration and enforcement of these provisions.
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:
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 that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology,
[[Page 42864]]
soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA
distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed
AVA boundary;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Petition To Establish the Candy Mountain AVA and To Modify the Boundary
of the Yakima Valley AVA
TTB received a petition from Dr. Kevin R. Pogue, a professor of
geology at Whitman College, proposing to establish the ``Candy
Mountain'' AVA and to modify the boundary of the existing Yakima Valley
AVA (27 CFR 9.69). Dr. Pogue submitted the petition on behalf of the
following industry members with wine businesses within the proposed
AVA: Ramer Holtan, who is developing a commercial wine grape vineyard
on Candy Mountain; Premiere Columbia Partners LLC, owners of Candy
Mountain Vineyard; and Paul and Vickie Kitzke, owners of Kitzke
Cellars. The proposed Candy Mountain AVA is located in Benton County,
Washington, and is entirely within the existing Columbia Valley AVA (27
CFR 9.74), and partially within the existing Yakima Valley AVA. Within
the 815-acre proposed AVA, currently there are two producing commercial
vineyards, Candy Mountain Vineyard and Kitzke Cellars, which cover a
total of approximately fifty-four acres. Additionally, Mr. Holtan has
secured long-term leases from the Washington Department of Natural
Resources to plant two hundred additional acres of vineyards within the
proposed AVA. A copy of the lease was included in the petition as
evidence of Mr. Holtan's intent to grow wine grapes. Currently, Kitzke
Cellars is the only winery within the proposed AVA, although the
petition notes that other wineries in Washington produce wines from
grapes grown within the proposed AVA.
Although most of the proposed Candy Mountain AVA is located within
the existing Yakima Valley AVA, a small portion of the proposed AVA
would, if established, extend outside the current eastern boundary of
the Yakima Valley AVA. To address the potential partial overlap of the
two AVAs and account for viticultural similarities between the proposed
Candy Mountain AVA and the larger Yakima Valley AVA, the petition also
proposes to expand the boundary of the Yakima Valley AVA so that the
entire proposed Candy Mountain AVA would be included within it. The
proposed expansion would increase the size of the 1,093-acre Yakima
Valley AVA by 72 acres.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Candy Mountain AVA are
its soils and topography. Although the petition also included
information on the general climate of the proposed AVA, the petition
did not include any actual climate data from within the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA. Instead, the petition provided climate data from the
nearby established Red Mountain AVA (27 CFR 9.167), which the petition
asserts has a similar climate. Because the petition did not include
evidence from within the proposed AVA to support its climate claims,
TTB is unable to determine that climate is a distinguishing feature of
the proposed AVA. Therefore, this proposed rule does not include a
discussion of the climate of the proposed AVA. Unless otherwise noted,
all information and data contained in the following sections are from
the petition to establish the proposed AVA and its supporting exhibits.
Proposed Candy Mountain AVA
Name Evidence
The proposed Candy Mountain AVA is located on the southwestern
slopes of a mountain known as Candy Mountain. The mountain is labeled
on the Richland quadrangle USGS map used to form part of the proposed
AVA boundary. According to several articles included in the petition, a
planned nature preserve that would be located at the summit of the
mountain is referred to as the Candy Mountain Preserve. A housing
development at the base of the mountain is named Candy Mountain Estates
and includes a road called Candy Mountain Avenue.
The region within the proposed AVA is also referred to as ``Candy
Mountain'' by members of the wine industry. Premiere Columbia Partners
LLC named its vineyard within the proposed AVA ``Candy Mountain
Vineyard.'' \1\ The petition included a page from the website of the
L'Ecole No. 41 Winery showing a wine made from grapes from the Premiere
Columbia Partners vineyard labeled as ``Candy Mountain Vineyard Red
Wine.'' \2\ Additionally, Kitzke Cellars refers to the location of its
tasting room as ``on Candy Mountain.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://premierewinegrapes.com/about.
\2\ http://www.lecole.com/2013-candy-mountain-red-wine.
\3\ http://www.kitzkecellars.com/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Evidence
The proposed Candy Mountain AVA is located in Benton County,
Washington, just southwest of the city of West Richland, on the
southwestern slopes of Candy Mountain. The proposed AVA has a roughly
oval shape and is oriented along a northwest-southeast axis. The
proposed northern, western, and southern boundaries follow roads and
interstate highways that are located along the base of the mountain.
Most of the eastern boundary follows a line drawn along the crest of
the mountain to separate the proposed AVA from the northeastern-facing
side of the mountain. The remainder of the eastern boundary follows
roads to encompass land near the base of the mountain that has slope
angles and slope aspects that are similar to those on the southwestern
side of the mountain.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the
proposed Candy Mountain AVA are its soils and topography.
Soils
The petition states that the soils of the proposed Candy Mountain
AVA are developed from wind-deposited silt (loess) and fine sand
overlying sediment deposited by ice-age floods. The sediment is a
mixture of gravel and sand that was derived directly from the surging
ice-age flood waters and also includes silt and fine sand that settled
out of suspension when the flood waters pooled behind downstream
topographic restrictions. The loess and sediment, in turn, both overlay
basalt bedrock.
According to the petition, the thickness of the sediment deposited
by ice-age flood waters gradually decreases as elevations increase,
since the lower elevations were more frequently and heavily inundated
by multiple ice-age floods. The petition states that the maximum
elevation reached by the ice-age flood waters in the region of the
proposed AVA was approximately 1,250 feet. The thickness of the flood-
water sediment within the proposed Candy Mountain AVA gradually
decreases as one moves up the mountain, and the sediment is not found
within the upper 70 feet of the proposed AVA. By contrast, the regions
to the north, south, and west of the mountain and the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA are at lower elevations and, therefore, have thicker
accumulations of flood sediments.
The petition states that the thickness of the loess and fine sands
that form much of the surface soil within the
[[Page 42865]]
larger Columbia Basin, including the proposed Candy Mountain AVA, also
varies with respect to slope angle and slope aspect. Since the loess
and fine sands were deposited by winds, they accumulated to greater
depth on shallower slopes, on hillsides that face away from the
prevailing winds, and in areas that are at lower elevations relative to
their surroundings. The petition states the soils in the proposed AVA
are shallower than the surrounding valley soils because the proposed
Candy Mountain AVA has higher elevations and steeper slopes than the
surrounding valley floor, and also faces into the prevailing winds.
According to the petition, the soils of the proposed AVA have an
effect on viticulture. The soils are fairly loose, which allows for
root expansion. The soils also do not have a large water holding
capacity, meaning that vineyard owners must monitor soil moisture
carefully to ensure the vines have adequate access to water. Soils with
low water-holding capacities also induce stress for grape vines, which
may limit vegetative growth and promote earlier ripening of the grapes.
Finally, the thin soils allow roots to come into contact with the
underlying basalt bedrock, which is comprised of calcium-rich feldspars
and other minerals that are rich in iron and magnesium, such as
pyroxene and olivine. The petition states that these minerals and
nutrients are only present in the bedrock, so vines planted in the
surrounding regions where the soil is thicker do not have the same
access to these elements as vines planted within the proposed AVA.
Topography
The primary distinguishing topographic features of the proposed
Candy Mountain AVA are its elevation, slope angle, and slope aspect.
Elevation
The proposed Candy Mountain AVA is located on the southwest slopes
of Candy Mountain, one of a series of four small mountains that are
aligned over a distance of 10 miles along a northwest-southeast
trending axis. Locally, these mountains are known as the ``rattles,''
due to their segmented nature and their alignment with the much larger
Rattlesnake Mountain, which is to the northwest. The four ``rattles''
rise above the surrounding Yakima Valley. Within the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA, elevations range from 640 feet to 1,320 feet. By
contrast, much of the land immediately surrounding the proposed AVA is
a valley floor with elevations below 640 feet. The exception is the
northeastern side of Candy Mountain, which has similar elevations to
the proposed Candy Mountain AVA but was excluded from the proposed AVA
due to its different slope angles and slope aspect.
According to the proposed AVA, the elevation of the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA affects viticulture. The petition states that vineyards
planted at higher elevations, such as those within the proposed AVA,
are less susceptible to damage from frosts and freezes associated with
cool air drainage than lower elevations, such as the surrounding valley
floor. The cool air does not collect in the higher elevation vineyards
and instead flows down the hillsides and eventually settles in the
valley floor.
Slope Angle
According to the petition, Candy Mountain is a geological feature
known as an anticline, which is an arch-like structure formed by
compressional tectonic forces that bent and uplifted the basalt
bedrock. The rock layers in an anticline are folded downward away from
the central axis, similar to the roof of a house. The two sides of the
anticline are called ``limbs.'' In the case of Candy Mountain, the
inclination, or dip, of the limbs is asymmetric. The limb on the
northeast side of the mountain has a much steeper dip than the limb on
the southwest side, where the proposed Candy Mountain AVA is located.
The northeast side of the mountain has slope angles of up to 60
degrees. According to the petition, slope angles over 20 degrees are
difficult to farm and are more susceptible to erosion than shallower
angles. By contrast, the slope angles on the southwest side of the
mountain, within in the proposed Candy Mountain AVA, are gentle to
moderate and range from 2 to 20 degrees. The valley floor surrounding
both the entire Candy Mountain and the proposed Candy Mountain AVA is
essentially flat, with slope angles of less than 2 degrees, and is
susceptible to cold air pooling and the associated frosts and freezes.
Slope Aspect
The petition states that in the northern hemisphere, slopes with a
southern aspect are favored for viticulture, especially at higher
latitudes like the region of the proposed Candy Mountain AVA. A south-
facing slope aspect increases the amount per unit area of solar
radiation that reaches the surface and promotes photosynthesis in the
grape vines, as well as grape development and maturation. The proposed
Candy Mountain AVA is located on the southwest-facing slope of Candy
Mountain. The opposite side of the mountain, outside of the proposed
AVA, has a northeast slope aspect. Most of the surrounding valley floor
is essentially flat, but where slopes exist, they are generally
oriented towards the north.
Summary of Distinguishing Features
Soils and topography distinguish the proposed Candy Mountain AVA
from the surrounding regions. The soils consist mainly of a mixture of
wind-deposited loess and fine sands overlying ice-age flood sediments.
The topography includes elevations of 640-1,320 feet, slope angles of
between 2 and 20 degrees, and a southwestern facing slope aspect.
The proposed Candy Mountain AVA is surrounded by the low, flat
valley floor of the Yakima Valley to the north, south, and west. Where
slopes do exist in these surrounding regions, they generally have a
northerly aspect. Because these regions have shallower slope angles and
lower elevations that were more frequently and heavily covered by ice-
age floods, the soils are deeper than the soils of the proposed AVA. To
the immediate east of the proposed AVA, on the eastern side of Candy
Mountain, the elevations are similar to those of the proposed AVA.
However, the slope angles to the immediate east of the proposed AVA are
steeper, resulting in shallower soil depths. Additionally, the eastern
side of the mountain is oriented to the northeast.
Comparison of the Proposed Candy Mountain AVA to the Existing Yakima
Valley AVA
The Yakima Valley AVA was established by T.D. ATF-128, which was
published in the Federal Register on April 4, 1983 (48 FR 14374). The
AVA is located in Yakima and Benton Counties, Washington, and covers
approximately 1,093 acres. T.D. ATF-128 states that the Yakima Valley
AVA is a valley drained by the Yakima River and surrounded by higher
elevations on all sides. The western portion of the AVA is a vast
expanse of flat land, while the eastern portion is comprised of gently
sloping land. The primary soils of the Yakima Valley AVA that are used
for viticulture are the Warden-Shano Association and the Scootenay-
Starbuck Association. These soils are silt-loams over basalt bedrock
and alluvial deposits. Rainfall within the AVA is sparse, generally
averaging less than 10 inches a year.
The proposed Candy Mountain AVA shares some of the general
viticultural features of the Yakima Valley AVA. For
[[Page 42866]]
example, the proposed AVA is located within the Yakima River drainage
basin. Additionally, the soils of the proposed AVA are silts over
basalt bedrock and ice-age alluvial deposits. Soils of the Warden,
Shano, Scootenay, and Starbuck series are all present within the
proposed AVA. The petition also states that a weather station at Benton
City, 4 miles northwest of the proposed AVA, averaged 6 inches of
rainfall annually between 2008 and 2015. However, TTB notes that no
rainfall data was provided from within the proposed AVA.
Although the proposed Candy Mountain AVA shares some general
characteristics with the overlapping Yakima Valley AVA, the proposed
AVA does have some unique features. For instance, the proposed AVA is
located on an isolated mountain, whereas the majority of the Yakima
Valley AVA is described as a broad, flat valley. Additionally, the
proposed Candy Mountain AVA has a greater diversity of soils than the
primary agricultural regions of the Yakima Valley AVA. According to the
petition, the proposed AVA was directly in the path of the fast-moving
ice-age floodwaters that surrounded Candy Mountain, Red Mountain, and
Badger Mountain. A strong back-eddy was created as the floodwaters
surrounded these mountains, causing gravel and various other heavier
particles to be deposited on the slopes of the mountains. By contrast,
the soils in the primary agricultural areas of the Yakima Valley AVA
are more homogenous because they were created from finer particles such
as sand and silts that were deposited in a slack water environment.
Proposed Modification of the Yakima Valley AVA
As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA also requested an expansion of the established Yakima
Valley AVA. The proposed Candy Mountain AVA is located in the
northeastern portion of the Yakima Valley AVA. Most of the proposed
Candy Mountain AVA would, if established, be located within the current
boundary of the Yakima Valley AVA. However, unless the boundary of the
Yakima Valley AVA is modified, a small portion of the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA would be outside the Yakima Valley AVA.
Currently, the Yakima Valley AVA boundary in the vicinity of the
proposed AVA and the proposed expansion area follows a straight line
drawn from the summit of Red Mountain, northwest of the proposed AVA,
to the summit of Badger Mountain, southeast of the proposed AVA. The
Yakima Valley AVA boundary crosses the summit of Candy Mountain and is
concurrent with most of the northern boundary of the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA. However, a small portion of the proposed AVA is outside
the Yakima Valley AVA. This portion of the proposed Candy Mountain AVA
(the ``proposed expansion area'') is shaped like a rectangle standing
on end and is defined by Arena Road on the west, Dallas Road on the
east, Interstate 182 on the south, and the 650-foot elevation contour
on the north. The proposed modification of the Yakima Valley AVA
boundary would increase the size of the established AVA by 72 acres and
would result in the entire proposed Candy Mountain AVA being within the
Yakima Valley AVA.
The proposed Candy Mountain AVA petition states that the vineyards
within the proposed expansion area lie approximately 600 feet outside
of the current boundary of the Yakima Valley AVA and did not exist at
the time the Yakima Valley AVA was established. However, the petition
states that the proposed expansion area is associated with both the
feature known as the Yakima Valley and the Yakima Valley AVA. For
example, the proposed expansion area is part of the larger Yakima River
drainage basin, which is a characteristic of the Yakima Valley AVA.
Additionally, the petition states that the owners of Kitzke Cellars,
which manages the seven acres of vineyards within the proposed
expansion area, have aligned themselves with the Yakima Valley AVA
through their membership in Wine Yakima Valley, which is the Yakima
Valley AVA's marketing organization.
The petition asserts that the proposed expansion area has similar
soils, elevation, slope angles, and slope aspect to the remainder of
the proposed Candy Mountain AVA, which is within the Yakima Valley AVA.
The petition also describes the general similarities that the entire
proposed Candy Mountain AVA shares with the established Yakima Valley
AVA, such as similar soil series and geology. Therefore, because the
petition demonstrates that the proposed expansion area has similar soil
and topographic characteristics to the portion of the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA that is within the Yakima Valley AVA, and that the
proposed Candy Mountain AVA shares some general characteristics of the
Yakima Valley AVA, TTB believes the petitioner's proposal to expand the
Yakima Valley AVA to include the proposed expansion area merits
consideration and public comment.
Comparison of the Proposed Candy Mountain AVA to the Existing Columbia
Valley AVA
The Columbia Valley AVA was established by T.D. ATF-190, which was
published in the Federal Register on November 13, 1984 (49 FR 44897).
The Columbia Valley AVA covers over 11 million acres in Washington
surrounded by the Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers. According to T.D.
ATF-190, the AVA is a large, treeless, broadly undulating basin with
elevations that are generally below 2,000 feet. In general, the growing
season within the Columbia Valley AVA is over 150 days, and growing
degree day accumulations generally number over 2,000. Soils generally
reach a depth of 2 feet or more and are comprised of silt loam, fine
sandy loam, sandy loam, or loamy sand.
The proposed Candy Mountain AVA is located in the south-central
portion of the Columbia Valley AVA and shares some broad
characteristics of the Columbia Valley AVA. For example, elevations
within the proposed Candy Mountain AVA are below 2,000 feet. The
petition also states that the proposed AVA has a similar climate to the
Columbia Valley AVA, although no data is available from within the
proposed AVA to support these claims.
However, the proposed Candy Mountain AVA does have several features
that distinguish it from the Columbia Valley AVA. Most notably, the
proposed AVA is characterized as an isolated hill, rather than a broad
plain. Although the elevations within the proposed AVA are within the
range of elevations found within the Columbia Valley AVA, the proposed
AVA's elevations are significantly higher than those of the immediately
surrounding regions. The petition states that the proposed AVA also has
steeper slope angles than much of the land within the Columbia Valley
AVA. Finally, due to the combination of higher elevations and steeper
slope angles within the proposed AVA, soil depths within the proposed
Candy Mountain AVA are shallower than the soil depths found within the
majority of the Columbia Valley AVA.
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 815-acre ``Candy
Mountain'' AVA and to concurrently modify the boundary of the existing
Yakima Valley AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited
in this document.
TTB is proposing the establishment of the new AVA and the
modification of
[[Page 42867]]
the existing AVA as one action. Accordingly, if TTB establishes the
proposed Candy Mountain AVA, then the proposed boundary modification of
the Yakima Valley would be approved concurrently. If TTB does not
establish the proposed Candy Mountain AVA, then the present Yakima
Valley AVA boundary would not be modified.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA
and the boundary modification of the established 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.
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, 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 Sec. 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (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 Sec. 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``Candy Mountain,''
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 the name ``Candy Mountain'' 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 AVA name
as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final
rule.
If approved, the establishment of the proposed Candy Mountain AVA
would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using ``Columbia
Valley'' or ``Yakima Valley'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand
name for wines made from grapes grown within the Columbia Valley or
Yakima Valley AVAs would not be affected by the establishment of this
new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Candy Mountain AVA and
expansion of the Yakima Valley AVA would allow vintners to use ``Candy
Mountain,'' ``Yakima Valley,'' and ``Columbia Valley'' as appellations
of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Candy
Mountain AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the
appellation. Additionally, vintners would be allowed to use ``Yakima
Valley,'' ``Columbia Valley,'' and ``Candy Mountain'' as appellations
of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed Yakima
Valley AVA expansion area 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 Candy Mountain AVA and
concurrently modify the boundary of the established Yakima Valley AVA.
TTB is interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy
of the name, boundary, topography, and other required information
submitted in support of the Candy Mountain AVA petition. In addition,
given the proposed Candy Mountain AVA's location within the existing
Columbia Valley AVA and Yakima Valley AVA, TTB is interested in
comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding
the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently
differentiates it from the existing AVAs. TTB is also interested in
comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so
distinguishable from either the Columbia Valley AVA or the Yakima
Valley AVA that the proposed Candy Mountain AVA should not be part of
one or either established AVA. Please provide any available specific
information in support of your comments.
TTB also invites comments on the proposed expansion of the existing
Yakima Valley AVA. TTB is especially interested in comments on whether
the evidence provided in the petition sufficiently demonstrates that
the proposed expansion area is similar enough to the Yakima Valley AVA
to be included in the established AVA. Comments should address the
boundaries, topography, soils, and any other pertinent information that
supports or opposes the proposed Yakima Valley AVA boundary expansion.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Candy Mountain AVA on wine labels that include the term
``Candy Mountain'' 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 name 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 by using one of the
following three methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the
online comment form posted with this document within Docket No. TTB-
2019-0006 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available
under Notice No. 184 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments
submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the
top of the page.
U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or
have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,
1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 184 and include your
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English,
be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public
disclosure. We do not acknowledge
[[Page 42868]]
receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals.
Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own
behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If
you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other
entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your
name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please
enter the entity's name in the ``Organization'' blank of the online
comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your
entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for
public disclosure.
Public Disclosure
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, selected
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2019-0006 on the Federal e-
rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at https://www.regulations.gov. A
direct link to that docket is available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 184. You may
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page
at https://www.regulations.gov. For instructions on how to use
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the
top of the page.
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all
address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous
attachments or material that it considers unsuitable for posting.
You also may view copies of this document, all related petitions,
maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed
comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB
Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington,
DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch
page. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings Division at the above
address, by email at https://www.ttb.gov/webforms/contact_RRD.shtm, or
by telephone at 202-453-1039, ext. 175, to schedule an appointment or
to request copies of comments or other materials.
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
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory
assessment.
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. Amend Sec. 9.69 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(4),
redesignating paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(10) as paragraphs (c)(11)
through (16), and by adding new paragraphs (c)(5) through (c)(10) to
read as follows:
Sec. 9.69 Yakima Valley.
* * * * *
(b) Approved maps. The four United States Geological Survey (USGS)
maps used to determine the boundary of the Yakima Valley viticultural
area are titled:
(1) Walla Walla, Washington (1:250,000 scale), 1953; limited
revision 1963;
(2) Yakima, Washington (1:250,000 scale), 1958; revised 1971;
(3) Benton City, WA (1:24,000 scale), 2013;
(4) Badger Mountain, Washington (1:24,000 scale), 2013; and
(5) Richland, Washington (1:24,000 scale), 2014.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Then southeast, crossing onto the Benton City map, to the top
of Red Mountain;
(5) Then southeast to a point on East Kennedy Road approximately
2,500 feet east of an intermittent stream flowing north into Lost Lake;
(6) Then southeast across the top of Candy Mountain, crossing onto
the Badger Mountain map, and continuing to the intersection with the
southernmost point of an unnamed road known locally as Arena Road; then
(7) Proceed north for 0.45 mile along Arena Road, crossing onto the
Richland map, to the intersection with the 670-foot elevation contour;
then
(8) Proceed generally east for 0.4 mile along the elevation contour
to the intersection with Dallas Road; then
(9) Proceed south in a straight line for 0.5 mile, crossing onto
the Badger Mountain map, to the intersection with Interstate 182; then
(10) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Walla
Walla map, to the top of Badger Mountain;
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec. 9.__ to read as follows:
Sec. 9.__ Candy Mountain.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Candy Mountain''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``Candy Mountain'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The three United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
Candy Mountain viticultural area are titled:
(1) Badger Mountain, Washington, 2013;
(2) Benton City, Washington, 2013; and
(3) Richland, Washington, 2014.
(c) Boundary. The Candy Mountain viticultural area is located in
Benton County in Washington. The boundary of the Candy Mountain
viticultural area is as described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the Badger Mountain map at the
southernmost point of an unnamed road known locally as Arena Road. From
the beginning point, proceed northwest in a straight line for
approximately 1.85 miles, crossing onto the Benton City
[[Page 42869]]
map, to the intersection with East Kennedy Road NE; then
(2) Proceed westerly along East Kennedy Road NE for approximately
2,500 feet to the intersection with an intermittent creek approximately
0.8 mile south of Lost Lake; then
(3) Proceed southeasterly along the easternmost fork of the
intermittent creek to the intersection with Interstate 82; then
(4) Proceed southeast along Interstate 82 for 2.25 miles, crossing
over the Richland map and onto the Badger Mountain map, and continuing
along the ramp onto Interstate 182 to a point due south of the
intersection of Dallas Road and an unnamed road known locally as East
260 Private Road NE; then
(5) Proceed north in a straight line for 0.5 mile, crossing onto
the Richland map, to the intersection of Dallas Road and the 670-foot
elevation contour; then
(6) Proceed west along the 670-foot elevation contour for 0.4 mile
to the intersection with Arena Road; then
(7) Proceed southerly along Arena Road for approximately 0.45
miles, returning to the beginning point.
Signed: June 18, 2019.
Mary G. Ryan,
Acting Administrator.
Approved: June 27, 2019.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2019-17688 Filed 8-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
