Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19901 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2015–0005; Notice No. 

149] 

RIN 1513–AC14 

Proposed Establishment of the LewisClark Valley Viticultural Area and 

Realignment of the Columbia 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 approximately 306,650- 

acre ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ viticultural 

area in portions of Nez Perce, Lewis, 

Clearwater and Latah Counties in Idaho 

and Asotin, Garfield, and Whitman 

Counties in Washington. TTB also 

proposes to modify the boundary of the 

existing Columbia Valley viticultural 

area to eliminate a potential overlap 

with the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley 

viticultural area. The proposed 

boundary modifications would decrease 

the size of the approximately 

11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley 

viticultural area by approximately 

57,020 acres. 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 June 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments 

on this proposal to one of the following 

addresses: 

• http://www.regulations.gov (via the 

online comment form for this document 

as posted within Docket No. TTB–2015– 

0005 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 

200E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this document 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 the 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 the 

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 grapegrowing 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 affecting 

viticulture, such as climate, geology, 

soils, physical features, and elevation, 

that make the proposed AVA distinctive 

and distinguish it from adjacent areas 

outside the proposed AVA boundary; 

• 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. 

Petitions to modify the boundary of 

an existing AVA which would result in 

a decrease in the size of an existing 

AVA must include the following: 

• An explanation of the extent to 

which the current AVA name does not 

apply to the excluded area; 

• An explanation of how the 

distinguishing features of the excluded 

area are different from those within the 

boundary of the smaller AVA; and 

• An explanation of how the 

boundary of the existing AVA was 

incorrectly or incompletely defined or is 

no longer accurate due to new evidence 

or changed circumstances. 

Petition To Establish the Lewis-Clark 

Valley AVA and To Modify the 

Boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA 

TTB received a petition from Dr. Alan 

Busacca, a licensed geologist and 

founder of Vinitas Consultants, LLC, on 

behalf of the Palouse-Lewis Clark Valley 

Wine Alliance and the Clearwater 

Economic Development Association. 

The petition proposed to establish the 

‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ AVA and to 

modify the boundary of the existing 

‘‘Columbia Valley’’ AVA (27 CFR 9.74). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkston,_

Washington. 

2www.lewis-clarkvalley.org/about/our-mission. 

3www.lctoday.com/tourism/valleyactivities.htm. 

4www.lcvalleyhomes.com. 

5As a measurement of heat accumulation during 

the grape-growing season, one degree day 

accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day’s 

mean temperature is above 50 degrees, which is the 

minimum temperature required for grapevine 

growth. In the Winkler climate classification 

system, heat accumulation as measured in growing 

degree days (GDDs) per year defines climatic 

regions. Climatic region I has less than 2,500 GDDs 

per year; region II, 2,501 to 3,000; region III, 3,001 

to 3,500; region IV, 3,501 to 4,000; and region V, 

4,001 or more. See Albert J. Winkler, General 

Viticulture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 

1974), 61–64. 

The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA 

is located at the confluence of the Snake 

River and the Clearwater River and 

covers portions of Nez Perce, Lewis, 

Clearwater, and Latah Counties in 

northern Idaho and Asotin, Garfield, 

and Whitman Counties in southeastern 

Washington. 

The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley 

AVA contains approximately 306,650 

acres and has 3 bonded wineries, as 

well as 16 vineyards containing more 

than 81 acres of grapes distributed 

across the proposed AVA. According to 

the petition, an additional 50 acres of 

grapes are expected to be planted in the 

next few years. The distinguishing 

features of the proposed viticultural area 

include its climate, topography, native 

vegetation, and soils. Unless otherwise 

noted, all information and data 

contained in the sections below are from 

the petition to establish the proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and to modify 

the established Columbia Valley AVA. 

A small portion of the proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA overlaps the 

southeastern corner of the established 

Columbia Valley AVA. The proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA does not 

overlap any other established AVA. To 

eliminate the potential overlap, the 

petitioner proposed to modify the 

boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA 

so that the overlapping area would be 

solely within the proposed Lewis-Clark 

Valley AVA. The proposed 

modifications would reduce the size of 

the approximately 11,370,320-acre 

Columbia Valley AVA boundary by 

approximately 57,020 acres. One 

vineyard, Arnett Vineyard, currently 

exists within the area of the proposed 

boundary modification. The vineyard 

owners have provided TTB with a letter 

supporting the establishment of the 

proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA and 

the proposed modification of the 

Columbia Valley AVA boundary. 

Proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA 

Name Evidence 

The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley 

AVA derives its name from the two 

principle towns within the proposed 

AVA: Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, 

Washington. The two towns, which face 

each other across the Snake River, were 

named in honor of Meriwether Lewis 

and William Clark, who traveled 

through the region of the proposed AVA 

during their famous expedition of 1804– 

1806. The petition included examples of 

schools, businesses, and organizations 

within the proposed AVA that bear the 

names of Lewis and Clark, including 

Lewis-Clark State College, Lewis-Clark 

Terminal at the Port of Clarkston, LewisClark Moose Lodge 75, Lewis-Clark 

Metropolitan Appliance and TV Repair, 

Lewis-Clark Credit Union, Lewis-Clark 

Dental Clinic, and Lewis-Clark Auto 

Sales. 

The petition also included evidence 

that the region of the proposed AVA is 

known as the ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley.’’ For 

example, the Wikipedia entry for 

‘‘Clarkston, Washington’’ states that the 

town is located ‘‘in the Lewis-Clark 

Valley at the confluence of the Snake 

and Clearwater rivers.’’ 1 The Lewis 

Clark Valley Chamber of Commerce 

promotes tourism and economic 

development within the region of the 

proposed AVA. An organization called 

Valley Vision has as its mission the 

‘‘[c]ontinuous improvement of the 

Lewis-Clark Valley’s business climate 

* * * .’’ 2 The Web site LC Today, 

which features news and activities in 

the Lewiston-Clarkston region, offers a 

listing of ‘‘60 Things To Do in the 

Lewis-Clark Valley.’’ 3 A Web site 

featuring real estate information for the 

region of the proposed AVA is called 

‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley Homes.’’ 4 The 

telephone directory serving the region of 

the proposed AVA is called the ‘‘LewisClark Valley Telephone Directory.’’ The 

Lewis-Clark Valley Metropolitan 

Planning Organization provides 

transportation project planning for the 

region. Finally, several organizations 

within the proposed AVA have the 

phrase ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ in their 

names, including the Lewis-Clark Valley 

Baptist Church, Family Promise of 

Lewis-Clark Valley, the La Leche League 

of the Lewis-Clark Valley, and the Boys 

& Girls Club of the Lewis-Clark Valley. 

Boundary Evidence 

The proposed Lewis-Clark Valley 

AVA consists mostly of canyon walls, 

low plateaus, and bench lands formed 

by the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. 

Approximately 98 percent of the 

proposed AVA’s boundary follows the 

600-meter elevation line, and all the 

land within the proposed AVA is below 

that elevation. The 600-meter elevation 

line was chosen because grapes do not 

reliably ripen annually above that 

elevation and, above that altitude, 

temperatures fall low enough to kill the 

varieties of Vitis vinifera (V. vinifera) 

grapes that are grown within the 

proposed AVA. TTB notes that the maps 

used to draw the proposed boundary 

show elevations in meters, and the 

petition describes the elevations within 

the proposed AVA and the surrounding 

regions in terms of feet. Six hundred 

meters corresponds to approximately 

1,970 feet. 

The regions outside the proposed 

AVA generally have higher elevations 

and colder temperatures than the 

proposed AVA. To the north of the 

proposed AVA is the high prairie region 

known as the Palouse. The heavily 

forested Bitterroot Mountains are 

located to the east of the proposed AVA 

boundary. The proposed southern 

boundary separates the proposed AVA 

from the Craig Mountains and from 

Hells Gate State Park, which is not 

available for commercial viticulture due 

to its protected status as an Idaho State 

park. Additionally, the southern 

boundary was drawn to prevent the 

proposed AVA from extending into 

Oregon, which is less than 5 miles from 

the southernmost proposed AVA 

boundary but is not considered to be 

part of the geographical region known as 

the Lewis-Clark Valley. To the west and 

southwest of the proposed AVA are the 

Blue Mountains. 

Distinguishing Features 

The distinguishing features of the 

proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA 

include its climate, topography, native 

vegetation, and soils. 

Climate 

Temperature: According to the 

petition, the temperate climate of the 

proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is 

well suited for growing wine grapes, 

especially varieties of V. vinifera. The 

warm temperatures of the proposed 

AVA have earned the region the 

nickname ‘‘banana belt of the Pacific 

Northwest.’’ The table below, derived 

from information submitted in support 

of the petition, compares the average 

annual temperature and growing degree 

days 5 (GDDs) of the proposed LewisClark Valley AVA and the surrounding 

regions. The data from the two weather 

stations within the proposed AVA and 

from the Moscow, Idaho, weather 

station, approximately 32 miles north of 

Lewiston, Idaho, was gathered during 

the period from 2000 to 2009. The data 

for the Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19903 

6The Parameter-elevation Relationships on 

Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) climate data 

mapping system combined climate normals 

gathered from weather stations, along with other 

factors such as elevation, longitude, slope angles, 

and solar aspect to estimate the general climate 

patterns for the proposed AVA and the surrounding 

regions. Climate normals are only calculated every 

10 years, using 30 years of data, and at the time the 

petition was submitted, the most recent climate 

normals available were from the period of 1971– 

2000. 

Mountains consists of estimates 

calculated by the petitioner based on 

elevation, as there are no weather 

stations located within these regions. 

Location (direction from proposed AVA) 

Average 

annual 

temperature 

(degrees 

fahrenheit) 

Average growing 

season GDD 

accumulation 

Lewiston Nez Perce weather station (within) .................................................................................................... 53.4 3,036 

Dworshak Fish Hatchery (within) ....................................................................................................................... 51.6 2,613 

Moscow, ID (north) ............................................................................................................................................ 47.6 1,796 

Bitterroot Mountains (east) ................................................................................................................................ 40 1,000–1,500 

Craig Mountains (south) .................................................................................................................................... 45 1,500–1,700 

Blue Mountains (west, southwest) ..................................................................................................................... 42 1,000–1,500 

According to the petition, the average 

annual temperatures and GDD 

accumulation that the proposed AVA 

experiences are within the range 

required for many varieties of wine 

grapes to ripen reliably, including 

Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, 

Grenache, Malbec, Pinot noir, Syrah, 

Pinot gris, Riesling, and Zinfandel, all of 

which are grown within the proposed 

AVA. By contrast, annual temperatures 

and GDD accumulations that the 

surrounding regions experience are too 

cold to support most viticulture, 

particularly varieties of V. vinifera, 

which require at least 2,000 GDDs to 

ripen successfully. As evidence, the 

petition notes that Washington State 

University in Pullman, located in the 

Palouse region approximately 30 miles 

northwest of Lewiston, Washington, has 

had a vigorous wine grape research 

program for the past 12 years but has yet 

to succeed in propagating and 

maintaining research vineyards due to 

the cold temperatures. 

The petition also included the CoolClimate Viticulture Suitability Index 

(CCVSI) statistics that were available 

from the two weather stations located 

within the proposed AVA and the 

station in Moscow, Idaho. The CCVSI is 

the number of days between the last 

spring temperature below 29 degrees 

Fahrenheit and the first fall temperature 

below 29 degrees Fahrenheit. Within the 

proposed AVA, the CCVSI for the 

Lewiston Nez Perce station was 234.2 

and the CCVSI for the Dworshak Fish 

Hatchery was 225.2. By contrast, the 

CCVSI for the Moscow station was 

159.5, which means the region north of 

the proposed AVA has a growing season 

that is approximately 2 months shorter 

than that of the proposed AVA. The 

significantly shorter growing season in 

the Palouse region does not allow 

sufficient time for wine grapes to ripen 

reliably, particularly the varieties of V. 

vinifera grown within the proposed 

AVA. 

Precipitation: The proposed LewisClark Valley AVA receives less rainfall 

annually than the surrounding regions. 

The following table is derived from data 

submitted in support of the petition and 

compares the annual precipitation 

amounts within the proposed AVA to 

those of the surrounding areas. 

Precipitation data from the two weather 

stations within the proposed AVA and 

from the Moscow, Idaho, station was 

gathered during 2000 to 2009. The data 

for the Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue 

Mountains was calculated using the 

data mapping system of the PRISM 

Climate Group at Oregon State 

University.6

Location (direction from 

proposed AVA) 

Annual 

precipitation 

amounts 

(inches) 

Lewiston Nez Perce weather 

station (within) ................... 11.3 

Dworshak Fish Hatchery 

(within) ............................... 22.7 

Moscow, Idaho (north) .......... 25.1 

Bitterroot Mountains (east) ... 40–70 

Craig Mountains (south) ....... 20–35 

Blue Mountains (west, southwest) .................................. 25–50 

The proposed AVA’s location to the 

east of the Blue Mountains is the 

primary factor behind its low 

precipitation amounts. The Blue 

Mountains, which rise to elevations 

over 6,000 feet, intercept storms carried 

on the westerly jet stream and prevent 

them from entering the proposed AVA. 

Most of the annual precipitation within 

the proposed AVA occurs between 

November and May, and the region 

experiences a prolonged summer 

drought. One viticultural benefit of 

summer droughts is that grape growers 

do not have to be concerned about 

excessive water damaging the roots of 

the vines. Although growing season 

precipitation amounts are very small, 

the petition states that viticulture is able 

to thrive within the proposed AVA 

because the winter rains are sufficient to 

‘‘fill the soil profile,’’ assuring adequate 

amounts of soil moisture necessary for 

bud break and fruit set early in the 

growing season. By mid-June, the soil is 

dry enough to induce mild water stress 

on the vines and slow the growth of 

canes and leaves, allowing the vines to 

put their energy into fruit production. 

Vineyard managers can then control the 

amount of water added to the soil via 

drip irrigation, ensuring that the vines 

receive enough water to survive but not 

so much as to promote overly vigorous 

cane or leaf growth or root rot. 

Topography 

The topography of the proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA includes bench 

lands, low plateaus, and steeply sloping 

canyon walls. Although the proposed 

AVA is often referred to as a ‘‘valley’’ 

because its elevations are lower than 

those of the surrounding regions, the 

landscape has been cut into such steep 

and deep V-notched canyons by the 

Snake and Clearwater Rivers and their 

tributaries that almost none of the AVA 

consists of the broad floodplains 

typically associated with valley floors. 

According to the petition, the lack of 

floodplains within the proposed AVA is 

beneficial to viticulture because 

floodplains often have high water tables 

that limit vine root depth. Floodplains 

are also susceptible to cold-air pooling 

that can damage new growth and delay 

fruit maturation. 

Elevations within the proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA range from 

approximately 740 feet along the Snake 

and Clearwater Rivers to approximately 

1,970 feet along most of the proposed 

AVA’s boundary. The average elevation 

within the proposed AVA is 1,200 feet. 

According to a table included in the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

petition, the vineyards within the 

proposed AVA are planted at elevations 

between 815 and 1,850 feet. The 

petition states that at elevations above 

approximately 1,970 feet, growing 

season temperatures are too cold to 

support reliable ripening of V. vinifera 

and winter freezes can be hard enough 

to kill dormant vines. 

The topography of the surrounding 

regions is different from that of the 

proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. To 

the north, the Palouse is dominated by 

rounded, gently rolling hills and 

elevations ranging from approximately 

1,000 feet to 2,800 feet, with an average 

elevation of 2,200 feet. To the east, 

south, west, and southwest of the 

proposed AVA are high, rugged 

mountains cut by deep canyons. 

Elevations in the Bitterroot Mountains, 

east of the proposed AVA, range from 

3,000 feet to 10,150 feet and average 

approximately 6,000 feet. To the south, 

the Craig Mountains range from 2,500 

feet to over 5,100 feet and average 

approximately 3,000 feet. To the west 

and southwest, the Blue Mountains 

range from 2,500 feet to over 6,300 feet 

with an average elevation of 

approximately 4,000 feet. 

Native Vegetation 

The native vegetation of the canyon 

walls, plateaus, terraces, and benches of 

the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA 

consists of low shrubs and perennial 

grasses that have deep masses of fine 

roots. Although some portions of the 

eastern half of the proposed AVA are 

sparsely forested, the understory of the 

forested regions is covered with 

perennial grasses. The petition states 

that the decomposition of the grasses 

and their roots over the years has 

contributed to the formation of nutrientrich soils within the proposed AVA that 

are high in the organic materials that 

promote healthy vine growth. 

Likewise, to the north of the proposed 

AVA, the native vegetation of the 

Palouse consists primarily of perennial 

grasses. However, most of the native 

vegetation of the Palouse was cleared in 

the late 19th and early 20th centuries for 

large-scale agricultural purposes, such 

as wheat production, which continue to 

this day. To the east, south, and west of 

the proposed AVA, the Bitterroot, Craig, 

and Blue Mountains are covered with 

conifer forests. The understories of these 

conifer forests are typically covered 

with pine needle litter instead of 

perennial grasses. The pine needle litter 

remains on the surface of the soil, 

unlike the root masses of perennial 

grasses. Therefore, the organic material 

released by the decaying pine needle 

litter does not mix as deeply into the 

soil as the material released by decaying 

grass roots. As a result, the soils of the 

mountainous regions are not as high in 

organic material and nutrients as the 

soils within the proposed AVA. 

Soils 

There are approximately 88 different 

soil types within the proposed LewisClark Valley AVA. However, 

approximately 95 percent of the soil 

types within the proposed AVA belong 

to the Mollisols soil order. Soils from 

this order are comprised primarily of 

decomposed perennial grasses and grass 

roots and contain a high level of organic 

matter in the form of humus. The 

humus accumulates within the soil, 

rather than just in a layer on top of the 

soil, due to the decomposition of the 

dense masses of grass roots. The high 

levels of organic matter in the soils 

provide an ample supply of nutrients for 

vineyards. Most of the cultivated 

Mollisols soils within the proposed 

AVA also contain loess, which is 

comprised of fine-grained particles of 

nutrient-rich silt that were deposited by 

wind. 

The soils within the proposed AVA 

are generally thin, having been eroded 

over the years by the Snake and 

Clearwater Rivers and their tributaries. 

As a result, the soils average less than 

6 feet in depth before reaching a 

restrictive subsurface, such as bedrock. 

The shallowness of the soils limits the 

depths of roots and prevents overly 

vigorous cane and leaf development. 

According to the petition, the 

Mollisols soils within the proposed 

AVA have the highest available water 

holding capacity (AWC) of any known 

soil texture class. AWC is the ability of 

soil to store rainfall and irrigation water. 

The soils within the proposed AVA can 

store approximately 2.4 inches of water 

per foot of soil. In regions that receive 

high amounts of annual rainfall, soils 

with high AWC may not be suitable for 

viticulture because excessive amounts 

of stored water promote root rot, 

mildew, and fungal diseases. However, 

because the proposed AVA has very low 

annual rainfall amounts and receives 

most of its rainfall outside the growing 

season, the amount of water stored in 

the soil is not excessive and does not 

pose a risk to the health of the vines. 

The soils of the surrounding regions 

differ from those of the proposed LewisClark Valley AVA. To the north, the 

soils of the Palouse are also loessderived Mollisols, but the soils reach 

depths of up to 12 feet, which is much 

deeper than the soil depth of the 

proposed AVA. In the mountainous 

regions to the east, south, west, and 

southwest of the proposed AVA, the 

soils also are deeper than within the 

proposed AVA. Even though the 

surrounding mountain slopes are steep, 

the soils have not eroded like the soils 

of the proposed AVA because the dense 

conifer forests have held much of the 

soil in place. Soils in the regions to the 

east, south, west, and southwest of the 

proposed AVA are mostly of the 

Andisols order and are derived from 

volcanic ash and other material 

produced by volcanic eruptions. Unlike 

the Mollisols of the proposed AVA, 

Andisols soils contain only small 

amounts of organic matter because the 

humus is derived from the 

decomposition of leaf litter resting on 

the soil’s surface, rather than from 

masses of grass roots decomposing deep 

within the soil. 

Summary of Distinguishing Features 

In summary, the climate, topography, 

native vegetation, and soils of the 

proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA 

distinguish it from the surrounding 

areas. In all directions outside the 

proposed AVA, the temperatures are 

cooler, the growing degree day 

accumulations are smaller, rainfall is 

higher, and the elevations are higher. 

The steep canyon walls, plateaus, and 

bench lands of the proposed AVA are 

different from the rounded, rolling hills 

of the Palouse region to the north and 

the rugged Bitterroot, Craig, and Blue 

Mountains that surround the proposed 

AVA to the east, south, and west. 

Perennial grasses and shrubs are the 

primary vegetation within the proposed 

AVA, whereas the majority of the native 

vegetation to the north of the proposed 

AVA has been cleared for agricultural 

purposes, and the regions to the east, 

south, and west are covered with 

coniferous forests. Finally, the soils of 

the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA 

are thin, loess-derived Mollisols soils, 

which are shallower than the Mollisols 

soils of the Palouse region to the north 

and distinct from the volcanic Andisols 

soils found to the east, south, and west. 

Proposed Modification of the Columbia 

Valley AVA 

As previously noted, the petitioner 

requested a modification of the 

boundary of the established Columbia 

Valley AVA. The Columbia Valley AVA 

is located in central and eastern 

Washington and northern Oregon. The 

proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA 

spans the Idaho-Washington border and, 

as proposed, would partially overlap the 

southeastern corner of the Columbia 

Valley AVA near the communities of 

Clarkston, Vineland, and Asotin, 

Washington. The proposed boundary 

modifications would reduce the size of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19905 

the Columbia Valley AVA by 

approximately 57,020 acres 

(approximately 0.5 percent) and would 

eliminate the potential overlap between 

the proposed AVA and the existing 

AVA. 

If the boundary modification is 

approved, the area of the potential 

overlap would be included exclusively 

within the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley 

AVA. Wines produced primarily from 

grapes grown within the removed region 

would no longer be eligible for labeling 

with the ‘‘Columbia Valley’’ appellation. 

There is currently one vineyard, Arnett 

Vineyard, within the region of the 

proposed boundary modification. The 

petition included a letter of support 

from the owners of that vineyard, stating 

their support for the proposed Columbia 

Valley AVA boundary modification and 

the establishment of the proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. 

Overview of the Columbia Valley AVA 

The 11,370,320-acre Columbia Valley 

AVA was established by T.D. ATF–190, 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on November 13, 1984 (49 FR 

44897), and codified at 27 CFR 9.74. 

The Columbia Valley AVA is a large, 

treeless basin surrounding the 

Columbia, Snake, and Yakima Rivers in 

Washington and Oregon. T.D. ATF–190 

states that the Columbia Valley AVA has 

a growing season between 150 and 204 

days and annual rainfall of less than 15 

inches. The topography of the AVA is 

characterized by its broadly undulating 

hills cut by rivers and broken by sloping 

basaltic uplifts. 

T.D. ATF–190 made no comparisons 

of the Columbia Valley AVA to the area 

identified in this proposed rule as the 

Idaho portion of the proposed LewisClark Valley AVA. 

Comparison of Distinguishing Features 

Within the Proposed Realignment Area 

to the Columbia Valley AVA 

The region of the proposed boundary 

modification is located in the 

southeastern portion of the Columbia 

River Valley AVA, along the Snake 

River and near the towns of Clarkson, 

Vineland, and Asotin, Washington. The 

petition emphasizes that the region 

proposed to be removed from the 

Columbia Valley AVA (hereinafter 

referred to as the proposed realignment 

area) has topography and soils that are 

more similar to those of the proposed 

Lewis-Clark AVA than to those of the 

existing AVA. 

The topography of the proposed 

realignment area is consistent with that 

of the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley 

AVA. The average elevation of both the 

proposed realignment area and the 

proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA is 

1,200 feet, which is higher than the 

Columbia Valley AVA’s average 

elevation of 700 feet. The proposed 

realignment area, like the proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, consists of 

steep, V-shaped canyons, low plateaus, 

and bench lands along the Snake River 

and its tributaries. By contrast, the 

majority of the Columbia Valley AVA is 

a broad basin with a gently rolling 

surface. The petition notes that the 

Columbia River Valley AVA contains 

rugged, canyon-like coulees and broad, 

flat-floored ‘‘channeled scablands.’’ 

However, the coulees and scablands 

were created by cataclysmic glacial 

floods from the ancient Lake Missoula, 

whereas the canyon of the proposed 

realignment area and the proposed AVA 

was carved over time by the flow of the 

Snake River. The coulees and scablands 

also are generally shallower and have 

broad, flat floors, as compared to the 

deep, steeply-sloped V-shaped canyons 

and narrow valley floors of the proposed 

realignment area and the proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA. 

The soils of the proposed realignment 

area also are different from the soils of 

the Columbia Valley AVA. Within the 

proposed realignment area, most of the 

soils are from the Mollisols order, as are 

the soils within the proposed LewisClark Valley AVA. By contrast, 

approximately 80 percent of Columbia 

Valley AVA soils are Aridisols and 

Entisols. Aridisols and Entisols soils 

generally contain less than 1 percent 

organic matter, compared to the humusrich soils of the Mollisols order. 

Aridisols and Entisols soils also 

generally have lower water-holding 

capacities due to their coarse or gravelly 

textures, whereas the loamy Mollisols 

soils of both the proposed realignment 

area and proposed AVA have greater 

water-holding capacities. Finally, 

Aridisols and Entisols soils are 

generally alkaline, compared to the 

slightly acidic Mollisols soils. Although 

the petition states that some Mollisols 

soils exist within the Columbia Valley 

AVA, they generally occur at high 

elevations that are too cold to support 

V. vinifera. 

In addition to the physical features 

that distinguish the proposed 

realignment area from the Columbia 

Valley AVA and unite it with the 

proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, the 

petition included evidence that the 

proposed realignment area is strongly 

associated with the name ‘‘Lewis-Clark 

Valley,’’ rather than the ‘‘Columbia 

Valley’’ name. For example, three of the 

businesses in the ‘‘Name Evidence’’ 

section of this proposed rule (the LewisClark Terminal, Lewis-Clark Credit 

Union, and Lewis-Clark Dental Clinic) 

are located within the proposed 

realignment area. Additionally, all of 

the organizations listed in the ‘‘Name 

Evidence’’ section serve residents of the 

proposed AVA as well as the proposed 

realignment area, further demonstrating 

that the proposed realignment area is 

strongly associated with the region 

known as the Lewis-Clark Valley. 

TTB Determination 

TTB concludes that the petition to 

establish the approximately 306,650- 

acre ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ American 

viticultural area and to concurrently 

modify the boundary of the existing 

Columbia Valley AVA merits 

consideration and public comment, as 

invited in this document. 

TTB is proposing the establishment of 

the new viticultural area and the 

modification of the existing AVA as one 

action. Accordingly, if TTB establishes 

the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, 

then the proposed boundary 

modification of the Columbia Valley 

AVA would be approved concurrently. 

If TTB does not establish the proposed 

Lewis-Clark Valley AVA, then the 

present Columbia Valley AVA boundary 

would not be modified as proposed in 

this document. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative description of the 

boundary 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 TTB lists them 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. If TTB 

establishes this proposed viticultural 

area, its name, ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley,’’ 

would be recognized as a name of 

viticultural significance under 

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

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

regulation clarifies this point. 

If this proposed regulatory text is 

adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers 

using ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ in a brand 

name, including a trademark, or in 

another label reference as to the origin 

of the wine, would have to ensure that 

the product is eligible to use the AVA’s 

full name ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ as an 

appellation of origin. If approved, the 

establishment of the proposed LewisVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:05 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM 14APP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Clark Valley AVA and the proposed 

modification of the Columbia Valley 

AVA boundary would allow vintners to 

use ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ as 

appellations of origin for wines made 

from grapes grown within the LewisClark Valley AVA, if the wines meet the 

eligibility requirements for the 

appellation. 

Use of ‘‘Columbia Valley’’ as an 

Appellation of Origin 

If the proposed Lewis-Clark Valley 

AVA and the corresponding 

modification of the Columbia Valley 

AVA boundary are approved, bottlers 

currently using ‘‘Columbia Valley’’ as an 

appellation of origin for wine produced 

primarily from grapes grown in the area 

removed from the Columbia Valley AVA 

would no longer be able to use 

‘‘Columbia Valley’’ as an appellation of 

origin, but could use the term ‘‘LewisClark Valley’’ in the brand name if 

otherwise eligible. See the ‘‘Transition 

Period’’ section of this document for 

more details. 

Bottlers currently using ‘‘Columbia 

Valley’’ as an appellation of origin or in 

a brand name for wine produced from 

grapes grown within the current, and if 

modified, Columbia Valley AVA would 

still be eligible to use the term as an 

appellation of origin or in a brand name. 

Transition Period 

If the proposals to establish the LewisClark Valley AVA and to modify the 

boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA 

are adopted as a final rule, a transition 

rule will apply to labels for wines 

produced from grapes grown in the area 

removed from the Columbia Valley 

AVA. A label containing the words 

‘‘Columbia Valley’’ in the brand name or 

as an appellation of origin may be used 

on wine bottled within two years from 

the effective date of the final rule, 

provided that such label was approved 

prior to the effective date of the final 

rule and that the wine conforms to the 

standards for use of the label set forth 

in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in effect prior 

to the final rule. At the end of this twoyear transition period, if a wine is no 

longer eligible for labeling with the 

‘‘Columbia Valley’’ AVA name (e.g., it is 

primarily produced from grapes grown 

in the area removed from the Columbia 

Valley AVA), then a label containing the 

words ‘‘Columbia Valley’’ in the brand 

name or as an appellation of origin 

would not be permitted on the bottle. 

TTB believes that the two-year period 

should provide affected label holders 

with adequate time to use up any 

existing labels. This transition period is 

described in the proposed regulatory 

text for the Columbia Valley AVA 

published at the end of this notice. 

TTB notes that wine eligible for 

labeling with the ‘‘Columbia Valley’’ 

AVA name under the proposed new 

boundary of the Columbia Valley AVA 

will not be affected by this two-year 

transition period. Furthermore, if TTB 

does not approve the proposed 

boundary modification, then all wine 

label holders currently eligible to use 

the ‘‘Columbia Valley’’ AVA name 

would be allowed to continue to use 

their labels as originally approved. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

TTB invites comments from interested 

members of the public on whether TTB 

should establish the proposed LewisClark Valley AVA and concurrently 

modify the boundary of the established 

Columbia Valley AVA. TTB is interested 

in receiving comments on the 

sufficiency and accuracy of the name, 

boundary, climate, topography, soils, 

and other required information 

submitted in support of the Lewis-Clark 

Valley AVA petition. Please provide any 

available specific information in 

support of your comments. 

TTB also invites comments on the 

proposed modification of the existing 

Columbia Valley AVA. TTB is 

especially interested in comments on 

whether the evidence provided 

sufficiently differentiates the proposed 

realignment area from the existing 

Columbia Valley AVA. Comments 

should address the name usage, 

boundaries, climate, topography, soils, 

and any other pertinent information that 

supports or opposes the proposed 

boundary modification. 

Because of the potential impact of the 

establishment of the proposed LewisClark Valley AVA on wine labels that 

include the term ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley,’’ 

as discussed above under Impact on 

Current Wine Labels, TTB is 

particularly interested in comments 

regarding whether there will be a 

conflict between the proposed area 

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 also is 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 

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– 

2015–0005 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the 

Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available under Notice 

No. 149 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 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 200–E, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this 

document. Your comments must 

reference Notice No. 149 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 

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 also may 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19907 

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–2015– 

0005 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/winerulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 149. 

You also may reach the relevant docket 

through the Regulations.gov search page 

at http://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., 

Washington, DC 20005. You also may 

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 our 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, 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. 

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 

■ 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. Amend § 9.74 by revising paragraph 

(b) and paragraphs (c)(38) through 

(c)(40) and by adding paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 9.74 Columbia Valley. 

* * * * * 

(b) Approved maps. The approved 

maps for determining the boundary of 

the Columbia Valley viticultural area are 

nine 1:250,000 scale U.S.G.S. maps and 

one 1:100,000 (metric) scale U.S.G.S. 

map. They are entitled: 

(1) Concrete, Washington, U.S.; 

British Columbia, Canada, edition of 

1955, limited revision 1963; 

(2) Okanogan, Washington, edition of 

1954, limited revision 1963; 

(3) Pendleton, Oregon, Washington, 

edition of 1954, revised 1973; 

(4) Pullman, Washington, Idaho, 

edition of 1953, revised 1974; 

(5) Clarkston, Washington, Idaho, 

Oregon, 1:100,000 (metric) scale, edition 

of 1981; 

(6) Ritzville, Washington, edition of 

1953, limited revision 1965; 

(7) The Dales, Oregon, Washington, 

edition of 1953, revised 1971; 

(8) Walla Walla, Washington, Oregon, 

edition of 1953, limited revision 1963; 

(9) Wenatchee, Washington, edition of 

1957, revised 1971; and 

(10) Yakima, Washington, edition of 

1958, revised 1971. 

(c) * * * 

(38) Then south following the 

Washington–Idaho State boundary on 

the 1:100,000 (metric) scale Clarkston, 

Washington, Idaho, Oregon map to the 

600-meter elevation contour along the 

eastern boundary of section 9, R. 46 E./ 

T. 11 N.; and then generally west 

following the meandering 600-meter 

contour to the eastern boundary of 

section 17, R. 45E./T. 11N.; then south 

following the eastern boundary of 

section 17 to the southern boundary of 

section 17; and then west following the 

southern boundaries of sections 17 and 

18 to the Asotin–Garfield county line in 

section 19, R. 45E./T. 11N.; 

(39) Then south following the 

Garfield–Asotin county line to the 600- 

meter elevation contour; then following 

generally west and south in a 

counterclockwise direction along the 

meandering 600-meter elevation contour 

to Charley Creek in section 4, R. 44 E./ 

T. 9 N.; and then west following Charley 

Creek on to the township line between 

R. 42 E. and R. 43 E.; 

(40) Then north following the 

township line between R. 42 E. and R. 

43 E. on the 1:250,000 scale ‘‘Pullman, 

Washington, Idaho’’ map to Washington 

Highway 128 at Peola; 

* * * * * 

(d) Transition period. A label 

containing the words ‘‘Columbia 

Valley’’ in the brand name or as an 

appellation of origin approved prior to 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 

RULE] may be used on wine bottled 

before [DATE 2 YEARS FROM 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL 

RULE] if the wine conforms to the 

standards for use of the label set forth 

in § 4.25 or § 4.39(i) of this chapter in 

effect prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

THE FINAL RULE]. 

■ 3. Add § 9.___to read as follows: 

§ 9.___ Lewis-Clark Valley. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘LewisClark Valley’’. For purposes of part 4 of 

this chapter, ‘‘Lewis-Clark Valley’’ is a 

term of viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The three United 

States Geographical Survey (USGS) 

1:100,000 (metric) scale topographic 

maps used to determine the boundary of 

the Lewis-Clark Valley viticultural area 

are titled: 

(1) Clarkston, Wash.–Idaho–Oregon, 

1981; 

(2) Orofino, Idaho–Washington, 1981; 

and 

(3) Potlatch, Idaho, 1981. 

(c) Boundary. The Lewis-Clark Valley 

viticultural area is located in Nez Perce, 

Lewis, Clearwater, and Latah Counties, 

Idaho, and Asotin, Garfield, and 

Whitman Counties, Washington. The 

boundary of the Lewis-Clark Valley 

viticultural area is as follows: 

(1) The beginning point is located on 

the Clarkston map in Washington State 

along the Garfield–Asotin County line at 

the southwest corner of section 18, 

T11N/R45E. From the beginning point, 

proceed east along the southern 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

boundary line of section 18, crossing 

over the Snake River, and continue 

along the southern boundary line of 

section 17, T11N/R45E, to the southeast 

corner of section 17; then 

(2) Proceed north along the eastern 

boundary line of section 17 to the 600- 

meter elevation contour; then 

(3) Proceed generally east-northeast 

along the meandering 600-meter 

elevation contour, crossing into Idaho 

and onto the Orofino map, then 

continue to follow the elevation contour 

in an overall clockwise direction, 

crossing back and forth between the 

Orofino and Clarkston maps and finally 

onto the Potlatch map, and then 

continuing to follow the 600-meter 

elevation contour in a clockwise 

direction to the elevation contour’s 

intersection with the southern boundary 

line of section 1, T37N/R1W, on the 

Potlatch map, north of the Nez Perce 

Indian Reservation boundary and west 

of the Dworshak Reservoir (North Fork 

of the Clearwater River) in Clearwater 

County, Idaho; then 

(4) Cross the Dworshak Reservoir 

(North Fork of the Clearwater River) by 

proceeding east along the southern 

boundary line of section 1, T37N/R1E, 

to the southeastern corner of section 1; 

then by proceeding north along the 

eastern boundary line of section 1 to the 

southwest corner of section 6, T37N/

R2E; and then by proceeding east along 

the southern boundary line of section 6 

to the 600-meter elevation contour; then 

(5) Proceed generally east initially, 

then generally south, and then generally 

southeast along the meandering 600- 

meter elevation contour, crossing onto 

the Orofino map, and then continuing to 

follow the elevation contour in an 

overall clockwise direction, crossing 

back and forth between the Orofino and 

Potlatch maps, to the eastern boundary 

of section 13, T35N/R2E, on the Orofino 

map in Clearwater County, Idaho; then 

(6) Proceed south along the eastern 

boundary of section 13, T35N/R2E, to 

the southeastern corner of section 13, 

T35N/R2E, northeast of Lolo Creek; then 

(7) Proceed west along the southern 

boundary line of section 13, T35N/R2E, 

to the Clearwater–Idaho County line in 

the middle of Lolo Creek; then 

(8) Proceed generally west-northwest 

along the Clearwater–Idaho County line 

(concurrent with Lolo Creek) to the 

Lewis County line at the confluence of 

Lolo Creek and the Clearwater River; 

then 

(9) Proceed generally south along the 

Lewis–Idaho County line (concurrent 

with the Clearwater River) to the 

northern boundary line of section 23, 

T35N/R2E; then 

(10) Proceed west along the northern 

boundary line of section 23, T35N/R2E, 

to the 600-meter elevation contour; then 

(11) Proceed generally northwest 

along the meandering 600-meter 

elevation contour, crossing onto the 

Potlatch map and then back onto the 

Orofino map and continuing generally 

southwest along the 600-meter elevation 

contour to the common T32N/T31N 

township boundary line along the 

southern boundary line of section 35, 

T32N/R5W, south of Chimney Creek (a 

tributary of the Snake River) in Nez 

Perce County, Idaho; then 

(12) Proceed west along the common 

T32N/T31N township boundary line, 

crossing Chimney Creek, to the Idaho– 

Washington State line (concurrent with 

the Nez Perce–Asotin County line) at 

the center of the Snake River; then 

(13) Proceed generally southeast along 

the Idaho–Washington State line in the 

Snake River to the northern boundary 

line of section 29, T31N/R5W; then 

(14) Proceed west along the northern 

boundary line of section 29, T31N/R5W, 

to the 600-meter elevation contour, 

northeast of Lime Hill in Asotin County, 

Washington; then 

(15) Proceed generally west and then 

generally south-southwest along the 

meandering 600-meter elevation contour 

to the southern boundary line of section 

25, T7N/R46E; then 

(16) Proceed west along the southern 

boundary lines of section 25 and 26, 

crossing onto the Clarkston map, and 

continuing along the southern boundary 

lines of section 26 to the 600-meter 

elevation contour west of Joseph Creek; 

then 

(17) Proceed southeast along the 

meandering 600-meter elevation contour 

to the western boundary line of section 

34, T7N/R46E; then 

(18) Proceed north along the western 

boundary lines of sections 34 and 27, 

T7N/R46E, crossing over the Grande 

Ronde River, to the 600-meter elevation 

contour; then 

(19) Proceed generally northeast along 

the meandering 600-meter elevation 

contour and continue along the 600- 

meter elevation contour in a clockwise 

direction, crossing back and forth 

between the Clarkston and Orofino 

maps, until, on the Clarkston map, the 

600-meter elevation line intersects the 

Garfield–Asotin County line for the 

third time along the western boundary 

of section 19, T11N/R45E; and then 

(20) Proceed north along the Garfield– 

Asotin County line, returning to the 

beginning point. 

Signed: April 7, 2015. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08501 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2015–0006; Notice No. 

150] 

RIN 1513–AC18 

Proposed Establishment of the Eagle 

Foothills 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 49,815-acre 

‘‘Eagle Foothills’’ viticultural area in 

Gem and Ada Counties in Idaho. The 

proposed viticultural area lies entirely 

within the Snake River 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 by 

June 15, 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–2015–0006 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS