3184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

M Street, NW., Suite 218, Washington, 

DC 20036–4505; 

(ii) By calling OSC, at: (800) 572–2249 

(toll-free), or (202) 254–3600 (in the 

Washington, DC area); or 

(iii) Online, at: http://www.osc.gov (to 

print out and complete on paper, or to 

complete online). 

(2) Filers may use another written 

format to submit a disclosure to OSC, 

but the submission should include: 

(i) The name, mailing address, and 

telephone number(s) of the person(s) 

making the disclosure(s), and a time 

when OSC can contact that person about 

his or her disclosure; 

(ii) The department or agency, 

location and organizational unit 

complained of; and 

(iii) A statement as to whether the 

filer consents to disclosure of his or her 

identity by OSC to the agency involved 

in connection with any OSC referral to 

that agency. 

(3) A disclosure can be filed in 

writing with OSC by any of the 

following methods: 

(i) By mail, to: Office of Special 

Counsel, Disclosure Unit, 1730 M Street 

NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036– 

4505; 

(ii) By fax, to: (202) 254–3711; or 

(iii) Electronically, at: http://

www.osc.gov. 

Dated: January 14, 2015. 

Mark P. Cohen, 

Principal Deputy Special Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00753 Filed 1–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7405–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2015–0002; Notice No. 

146] 

RIN 1513–AC12 

Proposed Establishment of the Squaw 

Valley–Miramonte 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 approximately 44,690-acre 

‘‘Squaw Valley–Miramonte’’ viticultural 

area in Fresno County, California. The 

proposed viticultural area does not 

overlap any established 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 by 

March 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments 

on this notice to one of the following 

addresses: 

• Internet: http://www.regulations.gov 

(via the online comment form for this 

notice as posted within Docket No. 

TTB–2015–0002 at ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ 

the Federal e-rulemaking portal); 

• U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or 

• Hand delivery/courier in lieu of 

mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 

200–E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this notice for specific instructions and 

requirements for submitting comments, 

and for information on how to request 

a public hearing or view or obtain 

copies of the petition and supporting 

materials. 

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 (Revised), 

dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB 

Administrator to perform the functions 

and duties in the administration and 

enforcement of this law. 

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 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 requesting the 

establishment or modification of AVAs. 

Petitions to establish an AVA must 

include the following: 

• Evidence that the region 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 viticultural 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; 

and 

• A detailed narrative description of 

the proposed AVA boundary based on 

USGS map markings. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3185 

Squaw Valley–Miramonte Petition 

TTB received a petition from 

Christine Flannigan, owner of the Sierra 

Peaks Winery and Purgatory Vineyards, 

on behalf of herself and other members 

of the Squaw Valley Grape Growers 

Group, proposing the establishment of 

the ‘‘Squaw Valley–Miramonte’’ AVA. 

The proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte 

AVA is located in Fresno County, 

California, approximately 40 miles east 

of the city of Fresno. The proposed AVA 

is a largely rural region in the foothills 

of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and 

includes the communities of Squaw 

Valley, Dunlap, and Miramonte. The 

proposed AVA does not overlap any 

established AVAs. 

The proposed Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte AVA contains 

approximately 44,690 acres and has 3 

bonded wineries and 5 commercially 

producing vineyards, covering a total of 

7.5 acres, distributed across the 

proposed AVA. The petition states that 

vineyards within the proposed AVA are 

small due to the region’s steep and 

rugged terrain, which requires most 

vineyard work to be done by hand 

rather than by machine. According to 

the petition, the distinguishing features 

of the proposed AVA include its 

climate, topography, 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 Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte AVA and its supporting 

exhibits. 

Name Evidence 

The proposed Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte AVA derives its name from 

the communities of Squaw Valley and 

Miramonte. Squaw Valley is the largest 

community within the proposed AVA 

and is located in the western portion of 

the proposed AVA. The community of 

Squaw Valley appears on the Tucker 

Mountain USGS quadrangle map, as 

does a large valley labeled ‘‘Squaw 

Valley.’’ Additionally, the same map 

shows the Squaw Valley Cemetery and 

the Squaw Valley School. The petition 

also included evidence that the name 

‘‘Squaw Valley’’ is associated with 

businesses in the proposed AVA, 

including Squaw Valley Realty, Squaw 

Valley Trading Center, Squaw Valley 

Motel, and Squaw Valley Herb Gardens. 

In order to avoid confusion with other 

locations in the United States that are 

known as Squaw Valley, including the 

famous Squaw Valley ski resort in 

Placer County, California, the petitioner 

added ‘‘Miramonte’’ to the proposed 

AVA name. As shown on the Miramonte 

quadrangle map, Miramonte is a small 

community in the easternmost portion 

of the proposed AVA. The Miramonte 

Conservation Camp, a State of California 

facility, is also shown on the Miramonte 

quadrangle map. The community of 

Miramonte is served by the Miramonte 

Post Office. TTB notes that several 

established AVAs have combined the 

names of geographic features or 

communities located within the 

particular AVA in order to provide a 

geographically distinct name for the 

AVA, including Pine Mountain– 

Cloverdale Peak (27 CFR 9.220) and Fort 

Ross-Seaview (27 CFR 9.221). 

Boundary Evidence 

The proposed Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte AVA is a region of steep, 

rocky slopes in the western foothills of 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains. To the 

north and east of the proposed AVA is 

the Sequoia National Forest. The San 

Joaquin Valley, which includes the 

cities of Fresno and Orange Cove, is to 

the south, west, and northwest of the 

proposed AVA. Elevations within the 

proposed AVA range from 

approximately 1,600 feet along its 

proposed western and southern borders 

to approximately 3,500 feet along its 

proposed eastern border. 

The proposed northern boundary 

follows the northern boundaries of 

several sections on the Luckett 

Mountain USGS quadrangle map. 

Although the features of the region 

immediately outside the proposed 

northern boundary are identical to those 

within the proposed AVA, the proposed 

northern boundary marks the northern 

extent of current viticulture in the 

region. Approximately 5 miles north of 

the proposed northern boundary is the 

Sequoia National Forest, which was 

excluded from the proposed AVA 

primarily because its public lands are 

unavailable for commercial viticulture. 

The eastern portion of the proposed 

boundary also follows the boundary of 

the Sequoia National Forest. The 

southern portion of the proposed 

boundary follows the Fresno-Tulare 

County line and several section lines on 

the Tucker Mountain and Orange Cove 

North USGS quadrangle maps. To the 

immediate south of the proposed 

boundary, the elevations are lower and 

broad valleys are more numerous than 

within the proposed AVA. The San 

Joaquin Valley is just farther south of 

that area. The western portion of the 

proposed boundary follows straight 

lines drawn between mountain peaks 

and separates the higher elevations of 

the proposed AVA from both the lower 

mountain slopes to the immediate west 

of the proposed boundary and from the 

San Joaquin Valley, farther to the west. 

Distinguishing Features 

The distinguishing features of the 

proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte 

AVA include its climate, topography, 

and soils. 

Climate 

The petition provided information on 

the temperature and precipitation 

within the proposed AVA and the 

surrounding regions. 

Temperature: According to the 

petition, the climate of the proposed 

Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA is 

subhumid mesothermal (high humidity 

and precipitation amounts, with winter 

temperatures too warm to sustain snow 

cover). Daytime temperatures within the 

proposed AVA are generally cooler than 

in the neighboring San Joaquin Valley to 

the south, west, and northwest. 

However, nighttime temperatures are 

usually warmer within the proposed 

AVA than within the San Joaquin Valley 

because cool air drains off the slopes of 

the proposed AVA at night and settles 

in the valley. As a result of the warm 

nighttime temperatures, the difference 

between the average daily high and low 

temperatures within the proposed AVA 

is small, particularly during the growing 

season. The difference between the 

average daily high and daily low 

temperatures is known as the diurnal 

temperature range (DTR). The following 

two tables summarize the average 

monthly high and low temperatures in 

degrees Fahrenheit for the proposed 

AVA and the surrounding regions, as 

well as the average monthly DTR. 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE DAILY HIGH AND LOW TEMPERATURES

Month 

Purgatory Vineyards 1

(within proposed AVA) 

Orange Cove 2

(southwest) 

Piedra 3

(northwest) 

Pinehurst 4

(east) 

Average 

high 

Average 

low 

Average 

high 

Average 

low 

Average 

high 

Average 

low 

Average 

high 

Average 

low 

Jan ................................................................... 57 44 57 36 55 37 57 38 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 Data obtained from private weather station for 

2011–2012. 

2 Data obtained from California Irrigation 

Management Information System Station #142 from 

2010–2012 (http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov). 

3 Data obtained from Intellicast weather Web site 

historical averages for Piedra, CA (http://

www.intellicast.com/Local/

History.aspx?location=USCA0861). The Web site 

does not list the years from which the data was 

gathered. 

4 Data obtained from Western Regional Climate 

Center Web site for 2010–2012 (http://

www.raws.dri.edu/cgi-bin/rawMAIN.pl?caCPIH). 

TABLE 1—AVERAGE DAILY HIGH AND LOW TEMPERATURES—Continued 

Month 

Purgatory Vineyards 1

(within proposed AVA) 

Orange Cove 2

(southwest) 

Piedra 3

(northwest) 

Pinehurst 4

(east) 

Average 

high 

Average 

low 

Average 

high 

Average 

low 

Average 

high 

Average 

low 

Average 

high 

Average 

low 

Feb ................................................................... 52 41 61 37 63 40 51 35 

Mar ................................................................... 55 43 65 40 68 43 55 36 

Apr .................................................................... 62 48 70 43 76 46 59 36 

May .................................................................. 70 55 79 46 85 52 68 44 

June ................................................................. 78 63 89 55 93 58 80 54 

July ................................................................... 86 72 95 61 99 62 89 62 

Aug ................................................................... 89 75 95 60 98 61 90 63 

Sept .................................................................. 85 71 92 58 92 57 87 65 

Oct .................................................................... 71 58 78 50 81 49 72 52 

Nov ................................................................... 60 47 64 39 66 41 60 40 

Dec ................................................................... 52 41 58 36 56 36 53 36 

TABLE 2—AVERAGE MONTHLY DIURNAL TEMPERATURE RANGE (DTR) 

Month 

Purgatory 

Vineyards 

(within proposed AVA) 

Orange Cove 

(southwest) 

Piedra 

(northwest) 

Pinehurst 

(east) 

January ............................................................................................................ 13 21 18 19 

February ........................................................................................................... 11 24 23 16 

March ............................................................................................................... 12 25 25 19

April .................................................................................................................. 14 27 30 23 

May .................................................................................................................. 15 33 33 24 

June ................................................................................................................. 15 34 35 26 

July ................................................................................................................... 14 34 37 27 

August .............................................................................................................. 14 35 37 27

September ....................................................................................................... 14 34 35 22 

October ............................................................................................................ 13 28 32 20 

November ........................................................................................................ 13 25 25 20 

December ........................................................................................................ 11 22 20 17 

The data in the tables shows that the 

average monthly high temperatures in 

the proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte 

AVA are generally cooler and the 

average monthly low temperatures are 

warmer than the temperatures in the 

regions to the northwest and southwest. 

As a result, the average monthly DTR 

within the proposed AVA is smaller 

than the average monthly DTR within 

the San Joaquin Valley. Average 

monthly high temperatures to the east of 

the proposed AVA are similar to the 

temperatures of the proposed AVA, but 

the average monthly lows in that eastern 

region are generally cooler, resulting in 

greater average monthly DTRs than are 

found within the proposed AVA. 

According to the petition, cool 

daytime temperatures and warm 

nighttime temperatures during the 

growing season produce higher levels of 

sugar and anthocyanins (pigments 

responsible for the color of grape skins) 

at harvest. Additionally, grapes grown 

in moderate climates such as the 

proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte 

AVA have higher levels of malic acid 

(an organic compound that contributes 

to the flavor of grapes) than grapes 

grown in warmer regions, such as the 

nearby San Joaquin Valley. Finally, the 

cooler temperatures of the proposed 

AVA result in later harvest dates than 

occur in the warmer San Joaquin Valley. 

Precipitation: The petition included 

data on annual precipitation amounts 

within the proposed Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte AVA and the surrounding 

regions. The precipitation data set forth 

in the following table were collected 

from the same sources and during the 

same time periods as the temperature 

data in Tables 1 and 2. 

TABLE 3—AVERAGE ANNUAL

PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS

Location 

(direction from proposed 

AVA) 

Precipitation 

(in inches) 

Purgatory Vineyards (within) .................................. 40.85 

Orange Cove (southwest) 15.48 

Piedra (northwest) ............ 12.27 

Pinehurst (east) ................ 51.42 

The data in the table shows that the 

proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte 

AVA receives more rainfall annually 

than the regions to the northwest and 

southwest, within the San Joaquin 

Valley, and less rainfall than the region 

to the east in the higher elevations of the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains and the 

Sequoia National Forest. The high 

rainfall amounts within the proposed 

AVA increase the risk of erosion on the 

steep hillsides. In order to minimize 

erosion, vineyard owners plant cover 

crops between vineyard rows and mow 

between the rows, instead of using a 

disk harrow to till the soil. Vineyards 

located in areas with high rainfall 

amounts are usually more susceptible to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3187 

root diseases, fruit rot, and powdery 

mildew than vineyards in drier areas. 

However, the steep slope angles and 

thin soil within the proposed AVA 

promote rapid drainage, which reduces 

the risk of root disease. Additionally, 

the risk of fruit rot and mildew within 

the proposed AVA is mitigated because 

the leaf canopies are dried by breezes 

that rise from the San Joaquin Valley 

during the day and flow down from the 

higher elevations and through the 

proposed AVA at night. 

Topography 

The proposed Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte AVA is located in the 

foothills of the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains. The terrain is characterized 

by steep and rugged hillsides covered 

with boulders and oak woodlands, 

although a few valleys exist within the 

proposed AVA. Slope angles within the 

proposed AVA range from 5 percent to 

over 75 percent, and elevations range 

from approximately 1,600 feet to 

approximately 3,500 feet. The following 

table shows the elevations and average 

slope angles of the vineyards within the 

proposed AVA. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED AVA VINEYARD ELEVATIONS AND SLOPE ANGLES

Vineyard Elevation 

(in feet) 

Slope angles 

(percent) 

Riffelhoff ................................................................................................................................................................... 3,000 15–35 

Purgatory ................................................................................................................................................................. 3,200 25–35 

White Ginger ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,000 15 

Adrian Joseph .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,800–2,000 20–40 

Buttercup .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,800 15 

Immediately outside of the northern 

boundary of the proposed Squaw 

Valley–Miramonte AVA, the terrain is 

similar to that found within the 

proposed AVA. However, this region 

was not included in the proposed AVA 

due to a lack of viticulture. The Sequoia 

National Forest, located approximately 

5 miles north of the proposed AVA, was 

excluded from the proposed AVA not 

only because of its higher elevations but 

also because its status as a national 

forest makes the region unavailable for 

commercial viticulture. The Sequoia 

National Forest also borders the 

proposed AVA to the east, as does a 

small mountainous region that is not 

within the national forest that was 

excluded from the proposed AVA 

because its higher, steeper elevations are 

unsuitable for viticulture. To the south 

and west of the proposed AVA, the 

elevations become lower and the slope 

angles become shallower as the foothills 

give way to the broad, flat terrain of the 

San Joaquin Valley. 

The topography of the proposed AVA 

has an effect on viticulture. The 

ruggedness of the terrain limits the 

amount of flat, open spaces, so the 

vineyards are planted on the mountain 

slopes. The steepness of the slopes 

allows for only very limited use of 

mechanized spray and harvest 

equipment, so much of the vineyard 

work is done by hand. Due to the 

difficulty of working the vineyards by 

hand, individual vineyards within the 

proposed AVA are small. By contrast, 

vineyards within the San Joaquin Valley 

are generally much larger because the 

broad, open valley provides ample 

space for vineyards, and machinery can 

be used more safely and easily on the 

flat terrain. The steep slopes of the 

proposed AVA increase the risk of 

erosion, which is controlled by planting 

cover crops and mowing between the 

vineyard rows instead of disking. 

However, the steep hillsides also 

promote increased airflow and drainage, 

which lessen the risk of mildew and rot. 

Finally, the high elevations of the 

proposed AVA allow the vineyards to 

receive more sunlight than vineyards at 

lower elevations within the San Joaquin 

Valley because fog is generally not 

present at elevations above 1,600 feet. 

Soils 

The majority of the soils within the 

proposed Squaw Valley–Miramonte 

AVA are derived from granitic material, 

mainly quartz diorite. The three most 

common soil series are the Vista, Sierra, 

and Auberry series. All three soil series 

are described as having good drainage, 

which reduces the risk of root disease. 

The soils within the proposed AVA 

have pH levels ranging from a slightly 

acidic 5.6 to a neutral 7.3, levels which 

are adequate for viticulture and do not 

promote overly vigorous vine or canopy 

growth. The soils within the proposed 

AVA are severely deficient in nitrogen, 

a nutrient necessary for vine growth, 

and therefore require supplementation. 

Additionally, soils in some of the 

vineyards within the proposed AVA 

have an excess of potassium, which 

interferes with the vines’ ability to 

uptake magnesium. As a result, 

magnesium must be added to the soil in 

these vineyards. 

To the north of the proposed Squaw 

Valley–Miramonte AVA, the soils are 

primarily of the Coarsegold and Trabuco 

series. Coarsegold series soils are 

derived from weathered schist, while 

Trabuco series soils are derived from 

igneous rock. The most common soil 

series east of the proposed AVA are the 

Holland series, derived from weathered 

granitic rock, and the Aiken series, 

derived from volcanic rocks. The soils 

in the area directly east of the proposed 

AVA are more acidic than the soils 

within the proposed AVA due to deep 

mats of decomposing needle litter from 

conifer trees. South of the proposed 

AVA, rock outcropping complexes such 

as the Auberry Rock Outcrop and the 

Blasingame Rock Outcrop are common. 

Farther south, within the San Joaquin 

Valley, alluvial soils such as San 

Joaquin loam and San Joaquin sandy 

loam become common. To the west of 

the proposed AVA, the most common 

soil series are the Hanford and 

Greenfield series. The soils west of the 

proposed AVA are less acidic, have 

finer textures, and are comprised 

primarily of alluvium. 

Summary of Distinguishing Features 

In summary, the climate, topography, 

and soils of the proposed Squaw 

Valley–Miramonte AVA distinguish it 

from the surrounding regions. The 

region to the north has higher, steeper 

elevations than the proposed AVA. The 

region to the east has higher, steeper 

elevations, as well as higher 

precipitation amounts and higher soil 

acidity levels than the proposed AVA. 

Portions of the regions to the north and 

east of the proposed were also excluded 

because they are part of the Sequoia 

National Forest and therefore are 

unavailable for commercial viticulture. 

To the south, west, and northwest of the 

proposed AVA lies the San Joaquin 

Valley, which has low elevations, flat 

terrain, and soils comprised primarily of 

alluvium. Additionally, within the San 

Joaquin Valley, average monthly high 

temperatures are warmer and annual 

precipitation amounts are lower than 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

within the proposed Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte AVA. 

TTB Determination 

TTB concludes that the petition to 

establish the approximately 44,690-acre 

Squaw Valley–Miramonte 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. 

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 

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 § 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, 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 § 4.39 of the TTB regulations 

(27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details. 

If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, 

its name, ‘‘Squaw Valley–Miramonte,’’ 

will be recognized as a name of 

viticultural significance under 

§ 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 

CFR 4.39(i)(3)). TTB does not believe 

that the term ‘‘Squaw Valley,’’ standing 

alone, has viticultural significance, as 

this name is associated with multiple 

locations outside the proposed AVA. 

Although the USGS Geographic Names 

Information System (GNIS) lists 6 uses 

of the name ‘‘Squaw Valley’’ within the 

proposed AVA, it also lists an 

additional 33 uses in 7 States, including 

locations in Placer, Lake, Shasta, 

Plumas, and Lassen Counties in 

California. Additionally, TTB does not 

believe that the term ‘‘Miramonte,’’ 

standing alone, has viticultural 

significance, as this name is also 

associated with multiple locations 

outside the proposed AVA. The GNIS 

lists 6 uses of the term ‘‘Miramonte’’ 

within the proposed AVA, but also lists 

an additional 17 uses within California 

and Colorado. Therefore, if TTB 

establishes this proposed AVA, only the 

full name ‘‘Squaw Valley–Miramonte’’ 

will be recognized as a term of 

viticultural significance under 27 CFR 

4.39(i)(3). The text of the proposed 

regulation clarifies this point. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using the 

name ‘‘Squaw Valley–Miramonte’’ 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 

Squaw Valley–Miramonte AVA would 

not affect any existing AVA. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

TTB invites comments from interested 

members of the public on whether it 

should establish the proposed Squaw 

Valley–Miramonte 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. Please provide 

any available specific information in 

support of your comments. 

Because of the potential impact of the 

establishment of the proposed Squaw 

Valley–Miramonte AVA on wine labels 

that include the term ‘‘Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte,’’ 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–2015–0002 on 

‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal erulemaking portal, at http://

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available under Notice 

No. 146 on the TTB Web site at 

http://www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.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 200–E, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this notice. 

Your comments must reference Notice 

No. 146 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–2015– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 3189 

0002 on the Federal e-rulemaking 

portal, Regulations.gov, at http://

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available on the TTB Web 

site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_

rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 146. 

You may also reach the relevant docket 

through the Regulations.gov search page 

at http://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 

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., 

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 information 

specialist at the above address or by 

telephone at 202–453–2270 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 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

■ 2. Subpart C is amended by adding 

§ 9.lll to read as follows: 

§ 9.lll Squaw Valley–Miramonte. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Squaw 

Valley–Miramonte’’. For purposes of 

part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte’’ is a term of viticultural 

significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The six United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the Squaw 

Valley–Miramonte viticultural area are 

titled: 

(1) Orange Cove North, Calif., 1966; 

(2) Pine Flat Dam, Calif., 1965; 

photoinspected 1978; 

(3) Luckett Mtn., Calif., provisional 

edition 1987; 

(4) Verplank Ridge, Calif., provisional 

edition 1987; 

(5) Miramonte, Calif., 1966; and 

(6) Tucker Mtn., Calif., 1966. 

(c) Boundary. The Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte viticultural area is located in 

Fresno County, California. The 

boundary of the Squaw Valley– 

Miramonte viticultural area is as 

described below: 

(1) The beginning point is located on 

the Orange Cove North map, at the 

southwest corner of section 21, T14S/

R25E. From the beginning point, 

proceed north-northwesterly in a 

straight line to the marked 3,355-foot 

elevation point on Bear Mountain, 

section 5, T14S/R25E; then 

(2) Proceed northeast in a straight 

line, crossing onto the Pine Flat Dam 

map and over the marked 3,354-foot 

elevation point on Bear Mountain, 

section 32, T13S/R25E, and then 

continuing northeasterly in a straight 

line and crossing onto the Luckett 

Mountain map, proceed to the marked 

3,489-foot summit of Dalton Mountain, 

section 22, T13S/R25E; then 

(3) Proceed easterly in a straight line 

to the Sequoia National Forest boundary 

line at the northwest corner of section 

28, T13S/R26E; then 

(4) Proceed east along the Sequoia 

National Forest boundary line, crossing 

onto the Verplank Ridge map, and 

continue south, then east, then south 

along the national forest boundary line, 

crossing onto the Miramonte map, and 

then continue south, then east along the 

national forest boundary line to the 

northeast corner of section 5, T14S/

R27E; then 

(5) Proceed south along the eastern 

boundary lines of sections 5, 8, and 17, 

T14S/R27E, to the southeast corner of 

section 17; then 

(6) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary line of section 21, T14S/R27E, 

to the northeast corner of that section; 

then 

(7) Proceed south along the eastern 

boundary lines of sections 21, 28, and 

33, T14S/R27E, to the Fresno–Tulare 

County boundary line at the southeast 

corner of section 33; then 

(8) Proceed west along the Fresno– 

Tulare County boundary line, crossing 

onto the Tucker Mountain map, to the 

southwest corner of section 34, T14S/

R26E; then 

(9) Proceed north along the western 

boundary lines of sections 34, 27, 22, 

and 15, T14S/R26E, to the northwest 

corner of section15; then 

(10) Proceed west along the southern 

boundary lines of sections 9, 8, and 7, 

T14S/R26E, and sections 12 and 11, 

T14S/R25E, to the southwest corner of 

section 11; then 

(11) Proceed south along the eastern 

boundary lines of sections 15 and 22, 

T14S/R25E, to the southeast corner of 

section 22; then 

(12) Proceed west along the southern 

boundary line of section 22, T14S/R25E, 

and, crossing onto the Orange Cove 

North map, continue west along the 

southern boundary line of section 21, 

T14S/R25E, returning to the beginning 

point. 

Signed: January 15, 2015. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01015 Filed 1–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS