Proposed Establishment of the Royal Slope Viticultural Area
| Citation | 84 FR 55075 |
| Record Number | 2019-22266 |
| Published date | 15 October 2019 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Alcohol And Tobacco Tax And Trade Bureau |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55075-55081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22266]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2019-0008; Notice No. 186]
RIN 1513-AC53
Proposed Establishment of the Royal Slope 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 156,389-acre ``Royal Slope'' viticultural area in Adams
and Grant Counties, in Washington. The proposed viticultural area lies
entirely within the existing Columbia Valley viticultural area. TTB
designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the
origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines
they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to
its regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received December 16, 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-2019-0008 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 Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013,
(superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB
[[Page 55076]]
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 the
wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2))
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes
the 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 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;
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;
An explanation of the proposed AVA is sufficiently
distinct from an existing AVA so as to warrant separate recognition, if
the proposed AVA is to be established within, or overlapping, an
existing AVA; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Royal Slope Petition
TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan Busacca, a licensed geologist
and founder of Vinitas Vineyard Consultants, LLC, on behalf of the
Royal Slope Wine Grower's Association, proposing the establishment of
the ``Royal Slope'' AVA. The proposed Royal Slope AVA is located in
east-central Washington and covers portions of Adams and Grant
Counties. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the established
Columbia Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.74) and does not overlap any other
existing or proposed AVA, although a small portion of the proposed
AVA's northern boundary is shared with the southern boundary of the
established Ancient Lakes of Columbia Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.227). The
proposed Royal Slope AVA covers 156,389 acres and contains 1 winery and
13 commercially-producing vineyards that cover a total of approximately
14,100 acres. Approximately 100 additional acres of wine grapes were
planted in 2016, and winegrowers report that they plan to plant about
200 additional acres of wine grapes in 2017 (Table 1).
The distinguishing features of the proposed Royal Slope AVA are its
climate, topography, geology, and soils. Unless otherwise noted, all
information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this
document are from the petition for the proposed Royal Slope AVA and its
supporting exhibits.
Name Evidence
The proposed Royal Slope AVA is a heavily farmed region of rolling
hills that gently slope towards the south. According to the petition,
one story of the origin of the region's name is that a pair of Scotsmen
climbed the nearby Saddle Mountains in the early 1900's. As they
surveyed the topography below, with its south-facing slopes that were
desirable for farming, one of the men was purported to have exclaimed,
``Now that's a royal slope!''
The petition included examples of the use of the term ``Royal
Slope'' to describe or refer to the region of the proposed AVA. The
petition noted that the region of the proposed AVA is labeled as
``Royal Slope'' on U.S.G.S. maps dating back to 1951. A search of the
U.S. Board on Geographic Names database \1\ shows that ``Royal Slope''
is the name of a slope in Grant County, Washington, where the proposed
AVA is located. A road within the proposed AVA is named Royal Slope
Road, and a local dairy is named Sunny Royal Slope Dairy. Finally, the
petition notes that the port district that serves the region of the
proposed AVA is named the Port of Royal Slope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://geonames.usgs.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition also included several examples of use of the term
``Royal Slope'' to refer to the region of the proposed AVA in printed
and online media. For example, a 1996 thesis from Central Washington
University is entitled ``Mid-Twentieth Century Pioneering of the Royal
Slope, Central Washington.'' \2\ An article from a major agricultural
weekly newspaper about the grain harvest within the region of the
proposed AVA is entitled ``Triticale harvest under way on Royal
Slope.'' \3\ An article from a local newspaper describes a businessman
who started a fruit freezing and drying company after he ``moved to the
Royal Slope in 1962.'' \4\ An article from an agricultural magazine
describes an orchard manager's discovery of a new variety of apple in
an orchard ``on Washington's Royal Slope.'' \5\ Several vineyards
within the proposed AVA list their location as ``Royal Slope'' on their
websites, including Lawrence Vineyards.\6\ Finally, the Washington Wine
Commission's website describes the location of both Lawrence Vineyards
and Stillwater Creek Vineyard as being on the Royal Slope.\7\ The
petition also stated that the name ``Royal Slope'' is not used for any
other geographic region in the United States, as attested to in the
U.S. Board on Geographic Names Geographic Names Information System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/thesis_projects/52.
\3\ https://www.capitalpress.com/state/washington/triticale-harvest-under-way-on-royal-slope/article_7b741500-aa2a-5a7f-bfde-093d2d039ab4.html.
\4\ www.Columbiabasinherald.com/crescent_bar_chronicle/news/business/article_8b7c49a2-327d-11e2-976c-001a4bcf887a.html.
\5\ www.goodfruit.com/a-grower-reaches-out-to-consumers.
\6\ www.lawrencevineyards.com.
\7\ www.washingtonwine.org/explore/map.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Evidence
The proposed Royal Slope AVA is a rectangular region with an east-
west orientation. It is located on the south-facing slopes of a range
of hills known as the Frenchman Hills. The northern boundary of the
proposed AVA mainly follows the southern boundary of the
[[Page 55077]]
Desert Unit of the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area, which is
unavailable for commercial viticultural purposes due to its status as a
wildlife refuge. The petition also states that the region to the north
of the proposed AVA is within the geographical feature known as the
Quincy Basin, which is very flat and has lower elevations than the
proposed AVA. The proposed eastern boundary also follows wildlife
refuge boundaries, namely the Goose and the Columbia National Wildlife
Refuge. The proposed southern boundary largely follows the 250-meter
(approximately 820 feet) elevation contour that separates the fertile,
gently rolling terrain of the proposed AVA from the lower, less fertile
``scablands'' of the Crab Creek Coulee. The proposed western boundary
also follows the 250-meter elevation contour that separates the
proposed AVA from less fertile lands along the Columbia River.
Distinguishing Features
The distinguishing features of the proposed Royal Slope AVA are its
climate, topography, geology, and soils.
Climate
The petition included data on several aspects of climate gathered
between 2009 and 2016 from three locations within the proposed Royal
Slope AVA and five nearby locations outside the proposed AVA. The
petition also included the same climate data for a location within the
established Red Mountain AVA (27 CFR 9.167), which is approximately 40
miles south of the proposed AVA, and a separate location within the
established Horse Heaven Hills AVA (27 CFR 9.188), which is
approximately 67 miles south of the proposed AVA. Due to the distance
of both the Red Mountain AVA and the Horse Heaven Hills AVA from the
proposed AVA, as well as the availability of sufficient climate data
from sources closer to the proposed AVA, TTB does not consider the
climate data from these two established AVAs to be relevant to the
proposed Royal Slope AVA petition and is not including that data in
this document.
Climate of the Proposed Royal Slope AVA and Surrounding Regions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean annual Number of days Number of days
air Average Cool-climate with with
Weather station location temperature annual viticulture temperatures temperatures
(direction from proposed AVA) (degrees growing degree sustainability below 32 above 95
fahrenheit days (GDDs) index \9\ (CCVSI) degrees F degrees F
(F)) \8\ annually annually
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Slope East, (within 52.2 2,951 242 79 9
proposed AVA)...............
Royal City East, (within 51.4 2,776 232 89 7
proposed AVA)...............
Royal City West, (within 51.8 2,978 229 95 12
proposed AVA)...............
Broadview (west)............. 47.2 1,940 159 161 6
Othello (east)............... 50.3 2,522 204 107 7
Frenchman Hills, (north)..... 50.1 2,484 207 118 6
Quincy (north)............... 50.7 2,807 242 95 2
Desert Aire (south).......... 54.7 3,518 260 77 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the proposed Royal Slope AVA, the mean annual air
temperature is slightly warmer than temperatures in the regions to the
north, east, and west, and slightly cooler than in the region to the
south. The petition describes the temperatures within the proposed AVA
as warm but not excessively hot, making it a suitable climate for
growing a variety of red and white varietals of Vitis vinifera grapes,
including Cabernet Franc, Merlot, Syrah, Chardonnay, and Riesling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In the Winkler climate classification system, annual heat
accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual growing
degree days (GDDs), defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates
for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50
degrees, the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. See
Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1974), pages 61-64.
\9\ CCVSI represents the number of days between the last
temperature below 29 degrees F in the spring and the first
temperature below 29 degrees F in the fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GDD totals from within the proposed AVA show a more significant
difference between the climate of the proposed AVA and the surrounding
regions. Two of the three stations within the proposed AVA have greater
GDD totals than all of the surrounding regions except the region to the
south, while the third station's GDD total is greater than all the
surrounding regions except the region to the south and the Quincy
station to the north. According to the petition, all three stations
within the proposed AVA are classified as being within the Winkler
Region II, which includes regions with GDD totals between 2,501 and
3,000. The petition states that locations classified as Winkler Region
II are suitable for growing all but the latest of the late-ripening
grape varietals.
The average CCVSI number for the three locations within the
proposed Royal Slope AVA is 234, indicating a long growing period
without hard freezes. Only the region to the south has a greater CCVSI
number than any of the stations within the proposed AVA, while the
Quincy station to the north has the same CCVSI number as the warmest
station within the proposed AVA. The remaining stations outside of the
proposed AVA have, on average, CCVSI numbers indicating between 30 and
70 fewer growing season days than the locations within the proposed
AVA. According to the petition, larger CCVSI numbers correlate with
better sites to fully ripen grapes.
In addition to having a long period of time between hard freezes,
the proposed AVA also has fewer days per year with temperatures below
32 degrees Fahrenheit (F) than most of the surrounding regions. The
only location with fewer days with temperatures below 32 degrees F than
all of the locations within the proposed AVA is the region to the
south. The Quincy station, to the north, has more days with
temperatures below 32 degrees F than two of the stations within the
proposed AVA and the same number of days with temperatures below 32
degrees F as one of the stations. This data shows the proposed AVA is
at less risk of vine-damaging freezes due to having a smaller number of
days per year with temperatures below 32 degrees F than most of the
surrounding regions.
Finally, the petition included information about the number of days
with temperatures above 95 degrees F within the proposed AVA and
surrounding regions. The proposed AVA has an average of only 9 days a
year with temperatures over 95 degrees F, whereas the region to the
south is
[[Page 55078]]
significantly hotter, averaging 23 days a year. The regions to the
north, east, and west all have fewer very hot days than the proposed
AVA. The petition states that at temperatures above 95 degrees F, grape
vines shut down photosynthesis, slowing or even stopping the synthesis
of sugars and other ripening factors. As a result, harvest may be
delayed into the fall, when seasonal rains or cold snaps could damage
fruit still left on the vine.
The petition also provided information on the average minimum
nighttime temperature during veraison, mean minimum temperature, and
mean annual wind run for each of the locations. However, because the
petition did not discuss the viticultural effects of those aspects of
climate, TTB was unable to determine if they were distinguishing
features of the proposed AVA, and they are not discussed in this
document. All of the climate data is available in the online docket for
this proposed AVA, Docket No. TTB-2019-0008, at www.regulations.gov.
Topography
The proposed Royal Slope AVA is located on the gentle, south-facing
slopes of an east-west trending range of hills called the Frenchman
Hills. Elevations within the proposed AVA range from 610 feet in the
extreme southeastern portion of the proposed AVA to 1,756 feet in the
extreme northeastern portion. The majority of the slope angles within
the proposed AVA are less than 15 percent, but very few slopes have
angles less than 3 percent. The slopes are gentle enough for
agricultural purposes, including vineyards, and are not as freeze-prone
as flatter terrains such as valley floors.
To the north of the proposed AVA, the Frenchman Hills fall away to
the Quincy Basin, a large, flat-floored valley. The portion of the
Quincy Basin along the northeastern edge of the proposed AVA is also
covered with sand dunes and ``pothole'' ponds that formed in the low
areas between dune crests. This region of pothole ponds and dunes is
also part of the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area and is therefore
unavailable for commercial agricultural purposes.
To the east, south, and west of the proposed AVA are the Crab Creek
Coulee and the canyon of the Columbia River, respectively. The
topography of these regions is characterized by large areas of craggy,
exposed bedrock with steep slopes that are mostly greater than 35
percent. The petition describes Crab Creek Coulee as a ``moonscape of
bedrock-dominated scabland'' that is suitable only for wildlife habitat
and light livestock grazing. The floor of the coulee is significantly
lower than the elevations within the proposed AVA, with the lowest
point within the coulee being 490 feet. Along the Columbia River, the
elevations are also lower than within the proposed AVA, and the terrain
is generally too steep and rocky for cultivation. West of the Columbia
River, the topography quickly rises to form the foothills of the
Cascade Range, which has higher elevations and steeper slopes than the
proposed AVA and lacks the climate, slope orientation, or soils
suitable for cultivation.
Geology
According to the petition, the entire Columbia Valley AVA,
including the region of the proposed Royal Slope AVA, is underlain with
Miocene-era basaltic bedrock and has been affected by Ice Age
megafloods. However, the petition states that these floods affected the
various sub-regions of the Columbia Valley AVA in different ways. For
example, in the region of the proposed Royal Slope AVA, floodwaters
followed flood channels to the east and northeast of the proposed AVA,
within the Frenchman Hills. The waters entered the region in a
relatively smooth fashion, and the proposed AVA remained largely above
the floodwaters. As a result, the region of the proposed AVA was not
heavily eroded and remained a landscape of gentle hills with deep soils
suitable for cultivation.
By contrast, the regions to the east and south of the proposed AVA
were affected by very fast, deep, and turbulent flood waters that
flowed into the valley separating the Frenchman Hills and the proposed
Royal Slope AVA from the Saddle Mountains. As these fast-moving waters
flowed through the narrow valley, they cut deeply into the landscape
and formed the eroded ``scablands'' of the Crab Creek Coulee. Similarly
strong floodwaters flowed through the Columbia River, to the west of
the proposed AVA, and created a steep, deeply-scarred river canyon. To
the north of the proposed AVA, the floodwaters flowed more gently and
smoothly over the flat landscape of the Quincy Basin, depositing vast
amounts of sand that formed depths of over 100 feet in places and
creating a landscape of dunes and ``pothole'' lakes.
Farther south of the Crab Creek Coulee is the established Wahluke
Slope AVA (27 CFR 9.192) on the southern slopes of the Saddle
Mountains. Although the Wahluke Slope AVA is a gently sloping region
with a gently undulating surface, the petition states that the Wahluke
Slope AVA has a different geologic history than the proposed Royal
Slope AVA. According to the petition, the Wahluke Slope AVA is located
on an alluvial fan or fan delta. The fan formed when the repeated Ice
Age megafloods flowing in the many floodways and coulees around the
region of the proposed Royal Slope AVA combined in the channel of the
Columbia River and traveled south. These floodwaters then broke through
a narrow watergap in the Saddle Mountains, known as Sentinel Gap. Since
the gap is only about a mile wide, it restricted the flow of the
floodwaters, which backed up to great depth upstream of the gap and
eventually jetted through the gap with great force. The floodwaters
carried sand, silt, cobbles, gravels, and boulders through the gap and
deposited them in a widening fan-shaped triangle that formed the slope
on which the Wahluke Slope AVA is located.
Soils
The soils within the proposed Royal Slope AVA are a combination of
sediments and soils from glacial floods and wind-blown post-glacial
sand and silt (loess). The soils within the proposed AVA are generally
deep enough for vines to extend their roots far into the soil before
encountering bedrock or other impediment. The predominant soils are
classified as Aridisols, which are characterized by loamy-to-sandy
textures and very low amounts of humified organic material, so vine
vigor is naturally low. The soils are also well drained and have
naturally low soil moisture, so growers can easily control vine
development via the timing and amounts of drip irrigation applied
during the growing season. The petition states that the major soil
series are Warden, Sagemoor, Adkins, and Kennewick, which together
comprise approximately 59 percent of the total soil in the proposed AVA
and approximately 75 percent of the vineyard acreage.
To the immediate east, west, and south of the proposed AVA are the
scablands of the Crab Creek Coulee and the Columbia River Valley. In
these regions, the Ice Age floodwaters stripped away most of the soil,
leaving behind exposed bedrock. Normal erosion processes in post-
glacial times have continuously removed any loose soil materials,
maintaining the scabland characteristics and leaving behind a rocky
landscape unable to support agricultural activities.
Farther south of the proposed AVA, within the established Wahluke
Slope AVA, the soils are deep and fertile enough for agricultural
purposes, including viticulture. However, the petition states that the
soils of the
[[Page 55079]]
Wahluke Slope AVA are different from those of the proposed AVA. For
example, the Adkins soil series, which is the most prominent soil
series of the proposed AVA, is not found within the Wahluke Slope AVA.
Instead, the most common soil series in the Wahluke Slope AVA is the
Quincy soil series, which makes up 32.6 percent of the soils of the
Wahluke Slope AVA but comprises less than 2 percent of the soils of the
proposed Royal Slope AVA. Additionally, soils within the Wahluke Slope
AVA are predominately classified as Entisols, rather than Aridisols.
The petition states that Entisol soils are extremely well-drained due
to their high sand content and are very susceptible to wind erosion.
Although the soils of the Wahluke Slope AVA have been developed for
viticulture, the petition states that vineyard owners with vines
planted in Entisol soils face more challenges than owners of vineyards
planted in Aridosol soils due to their ``extreme droughtiness'' and
``extreme wind erosion hazard.''
To the north of the proposed AVA, within the established Ancient
Lakes of Columbia Valley AVA, the soils are also predominately
Entisols. The Quincy soil series is also the most common soil series in
this region, making up approximately 19 percent of the soils.
Summary of Distinguishing Features
In summary, the climate, topography, geology, and soils of the
proposed Royal Slope AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions.
The following table summarizes the differences between the proposed AVA
and the surrounding regions.
Summary of Distinguishing Features
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Climate Topography Geology Soils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Royal Slope AVA........ Moderately warm Rolling hills with Remained Deep, well-drained
Winkler Region II gentle south- relatively soils derived
with a long facing slopes. untouched by Ice from glacial
growing season. Age floods; sediments and
little exposed loess;
bedrock. predominately
Aridisols of the
Adkins soil
series.
North........................... Slightly cooler Large, flat- Ice Age floods Sandy soils;
temperatures with floored valley deposited large predominately
generally shorter with regions of quantities of Entisols of the
growing season. sand dunes and sand and formed Quincy soil
``pothole'' ponds. ``pothole'' ponds. series.
East............................ Slightly cooler Rocky, steep-sided Deeply eroded by Very little soil
temperatures with ``scabland'' Ice Age floods, due to erosion.
shorter growing coulee. leaving behind
season. large quantities
of exposed
bedrock.
South........................... Significantly Rocky, steep-sided To the immediate To the immediate
warmer ``scabland'' south, deeply south, very
temperatures with coulee to eroded by Ice Age little soil due
longer growing immediate south; floods, leaving to erosion; in
season. gently sloping behind large Wahluke Slope
terrain farther quantities of AVA, sandy soils,
south in Wahluke exposed bedrock; including
Slope AVA. farther south, Entisols of the
the Wahluke Slope Quincy soil
AVA is an series.
alluvial fan
created by Ice
Age floods.
West............................ Significantly Rocky, steep-sided Deeply eroded by Very little soil
cooler canyon of the Ice Age floods, due to erosion.
temperatures with Columbia River; leaving behind
significantly farther west, the large quantities
shorter growing rugged slopes of of exposed
season. the Cascade Range. bedrock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of the Proposed Royal Slope AVA to the Existing Columbia
Valley AVA
T.D. ATF-190, which published in the Federal Register on November
13, 1984 (49 FR 44895), established the Columbia Valley AVA in central
Washington and the north-central portion of Oregon. The Columbia Valley
AVA is described in T.D. ATF-190 as a large, treeless basin of
undulating hills surrounding the Snake, Yakima, and Columbia Rivers
within the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountains. The climate of the
Columbia Valley AVA is characterized by a growing season length of over
150 days and annual rainfall totals of 15 inches or less.
The proposed Royal Slope AVA is located in the western central
portion of the Columbia Valley AVA and shares some broad
characteristics with the established AVA. For example, the proposed AVA
is also a treeless region of undulating hills and is adjacent to the
Columbia River. Additionally, the growing season of the proposed AVA is
longer than 150 days, with an average growing season length of 234
days. Furthermore, although precipitation is not a distinguishing
feature of the proposed AVA, the petition notes that annual rainfall
amounts within the proposed Royal Slope AVA average 6.5 inches, which
is within the range of the annual precipitation amounts for the
Columbia Valley AVA. However, the smaller proposed AVA is much more
uniform in its climate, topography, geology, and soils than the much
larger established Columbia Valley. For example, the proposed Royal
Slope AVA does not contain any ``scablands'' or other regions with
large amounts of exposed bedrock. The proposed AVA also has a more
limited variety of soils than the more diverse Columbia Valley AVA.
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately
156,389-acre Royal Slope AVA merits consideration and public comment,
as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for
AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this
proposed rule.
[[Page 55080]]
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, ``Royal Slope,''
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 ``Royal Slope'' 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.
The approval of the proposed Royal Slope AVA would not affect any
existing AVA, and any bottlers using ``Columbia Valley'' as an
appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes
grown within the Royal Slope AVA would not be affected by the
establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed Royal
Slope AVA would allow vintners to use ``Royal Slope'' and ``Columbia
Valley'' as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown
within the proposed Royal Slope 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 it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in
receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name,
boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in
support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Royal Slope
AVA's location within the existing Columbia 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 Columbia Valley AVA.
TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features
of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding
Columbia Valley AVA that the proposed Royal Slope AVA should no longer
be part of that AVA. Please provide any available specific information
in support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Royal Slope AVA on wine labels that include the term ``Royal
Slope'' 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 AVA 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 AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the
following three methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the
online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2019-
0008 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available
under Notice No. 186 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml">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.
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
notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 186 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. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB
considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for
yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If
you are commenting on behalf of an 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 or hand delivery/courier, 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 notice, selected
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2019-0008 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. 186. You may
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page
at https://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use
Regulations.gov, click on the site's ``Help'' tab.
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of
[[Page 55081]]
mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses.
TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau
considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions,
maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed
comments that TTB receives 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. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS
maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of
the AVA petition. 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
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 notice of proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes 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: Sec. 9. __Royal Slope.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Royal Slope''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``Royal Slope'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The one United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:100,000 scale topographic map used to determine the boundary of the
Royal Slope viticultural area is ``Priest Rapids, WA,'' 2015.
(c) Boundary. The Royal Slope viticultural area is located in Grant
and Adams Counties in Washington. The boundary of the Royal Slope
viticultural area is as described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (17) of
this section:
(1) The point of the beginning is on the Priest Rapids map at the
intersection of the 250 meter elevation contour and the northern
boundary of Section 8, T17N/R23E. From the beginning point, proceed
east for approximately 7 miles along the northern boundaries of
Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, T17N/R23E, and Sections 7 and 8, T17N/
R24E to the northeast corner of Section 8, T17N/R24E; then
(2) Proceed south for approximately 1 mile along the eastern
boundary of Section 8 to the southeast corner of Section 8, T17N/R24 E;
then
(3) Proceed east for approximately 4 miles along the southern
boundaries of Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12, T17N/R24E, to the
southeastern corner of Section 12, T17N/R24E; then
(4) Proceed north for approximately 1.8 miles along the eastern
boundaries of Sections 12 and 1, T17N/R24E, to the intersection of the
eastern boundary of Section 1 and the southern boundary of the Desert
Unit of the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area; then
(5) Proceed easterly for approximately 20 miles along the boundary
of the Desert Unit of the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area to the
intersection of the wildlife area boundary with O'Sullivan Dam Road/
State Highway 262; then
(6) Proceed east for approximately 1.5 miles along O'Sullivan Dam
Road/State Highway 262 to the intersection of the road with an unnamed
road known locally as H Road SE; then
(7) Proceed southeasterly for approximately 1.6 miles along H Road
SE to the intersection of the road with the southern boundary of
Section 16, T17N/R28E; then
(8) Proceed east for approximately 0.4 mile along the southern
boundary of Section 16 to the intersection of the southeastern corner
of Section 16, T17N/R28E, and the western boundary of the Columbia
National Wildlife Refuge; then
(9) Proceed southerly, then southwesterly, for approximately 8
miles along the western boundary of the Columbia National Wildlife
Refuge and the concurrent western boundary of the Goose Lakes Unit of
the Columbia Basin State Wildlife Area to the intersection of the
wildlife refuge boundary with the eastern boundary of Section 14, T16N/
R27E; then
(10) Proceed south along the eastern boundaries of Sections 14, 23,
26, and 35, T16N/R27E, to the intersection of the eastern boundary of
Section 35 with State Highway 26; then
(11) Proceed northwesterly for approximately 3 miles along State
Highway 26 to the intersection of the highway with the 250-meter
elevation contour in the southwest corner of Section 21, T16/R27E; then
(12) Proceed westerly for approximately 28 miles along the 250-
meter elevation contour to the intersection of the elevation contour
with the eastern boundary of Section 26, T16N/R23E; then
(13) Proceed north for approximately 1,100 feet along the eastern
boundary of Section 26 to the northeast corner of Section 26, T16N/
R23E; then
(14) Proceed west for 1 mile along the northern boundary of Section
26, T16N/R23E, to the intersection with the eastern boundary of Section
22, T16N/R23E; then
(15) Proceed north for 1 mile along the eastern boundary of Section
22 to the northern boundary of Section 22, T16N/R23E; then
(16) Proceed west for approximately 1.05 miles along the northern
boundary of Section 22, T16N/R23E, to the intersection of the section
boundary with the 250-meter elevation contour; then
(17) Proceed northerly for approximately 10 miles along the 250-
meter elevation contour to return to the beginning point.
Signed: July 10, 2019.
Mary G. Ryan,
Acting Administrator.
Approved: September 23, 2019.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2019-22266 Filed 10-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
