Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32191 

the ‘‘Palos Verdes Peninsula’’ AVA in 

Los Angeles County, California, 

effective 30 days from the publication 

date of this document. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative description of the 

boundary of the Palos Verdes Peninsula 

AVA in the regulatory text published at 

the end of this final rule. 

Maps 

The petitioners provided the required 

maps, and they are listed below in the 

regulatory text. You may also view the 

Palos Verdes Peninsula AVA boundary 

on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB 

website, at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

ava-map-explorer. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. For a 

wine to be labeled with an AVA name 

or with a brand name that includes an 

AVA name, at least 85 percent of the 

wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name, and the wine must meet the 

other conditions listed in 27 CFR 

4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for 

labeling with an AVA name and that 

name appears in the brand name, then 

the label is not in compliance and the 

bottler must change the brand name and 

obtain approval of a new label. 

Similarly, if the AVA name appears in 

another reference on the label in a 

misleading manner, the bottler would 

have to obtain approval of a new label. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing an AVA name 

that was used as a brand name on a 

label approved before July 7, 1986. See 

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

With the establishment of the Palos 

Verdes Peninsula AVA, its name, ‘‘Palos 

Verdes Peninsula,’’ will 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 

regulations clarifies this point. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using the 

name ‘‘Palos Verdes Peninsula’’ in a 

brand name, including a trademark, or 

in another label reference as to the 

origin of the wine, will have to ensure 

that the product is eligible to use the 

AVA name as an appellation of origin. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

TTB certifies that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The regulation imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of an AVA name 

would be the result of a proprietor’s 

efforts and consumer acceptance of 

wines from that area. Therefore, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

as defined by Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30, 1993. Therefore, no 

regulatory assessment is required. 

Drafting Information 

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division drafted this final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

The Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter 

I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 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 

§ 9.274 to read as follows: 

§ 9.274 Palos Verdes Peninsula. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Palos 

Verdes Peninsula’’. For purposes of part 

4 of this chapter, ‘‘Palos Verdes 

Peninsula’’ is a term of viticultural 

significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The three United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the Palos 

Verdes Peninsula viticultural area are 

titled: 

(1) Redondo Beach, CA, 1996; 

(2) Torrance, Calif., 1964 

(photorevised 1981); and 

(3) San Pedro Calif., 1964 

(photorevised 1981). 

(c) Boundary. The Palos Verdes 

Peninsula viticultural area is located in 

the southwestern coastal region of Los 

Angeles County, and contains the cities 

of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, 

Rolling Hills Estates, and Rancho Palos 

Verdes, California. The boundary of the 

Palos Verdes Peninsula viticultural area 

is as described below: 

(1) The beginning point is on the 

Redondo Beach map at the intersection 

of the Pacific Ocean and the Torrance 

corporate boundary at Malaga Cove, 

R14W/T4S; then 

(2) From the beginning point, proceed 

east, then generally southeast, along the 

Torrance corporate boundary, crossing 

onto the Torrance map, to the corporate 

boundary’s intersection with the Lomita 

corporate boundary, R14W/T4S; then 

(3) Proceed generally southeast along 

the Lomita corporate boundary to its 

intersection with Western Avenue, 

R14W/T4S; then 

(4) Proceed south along Western 

Avenue, crossing onto the San Pedro 

map, to the road’s intersection with the 

Los Angeles city boundary, R14W/T5S; 

then 

(5) Proceed west, then generally 

south, then southwest along the Los 

Angeles city boundary to its intersection 

with the Pacific Ocean at Palos Verdes 

Peninsula Park, R14W/T5S; then 

(6) Proceed clockwise along the 

Pacific coastline to return to the 

beginning point. 

Signed: December 1, 2020. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: January 5, 2021. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2021–12770 Filed 6–16–21; 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–2020–0005; T.D. TTB–168; 

Ref: Notice No. 190] 

RIN 1513–AC60 

Establishment of The Burn of 

Columbia Valley Viticultural Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the 

approximately 16,870-acre ‘‘The Burn of 

Columbia Valley’’ viticultural area in 

Klickitat County, Washington. The 

newly-established The Burn of 

Columbia Valley viticultural area is 

located entirely within the existing 

Columbia Valley viticultural area. TTB 

designates viticultural areas to allow 

vintners to better describe the origin of 

their wines and to allow consumers to 

better identify wines they may 

purchase. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32192 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Albert J. Winkler et al., General Viticulture 

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2nd. ed. 

1974), pages 61–64. In the Winkler scale, the GDD 

regions are defined as follows: Region I = less than 

2,500 GDDs; Region II = 2,501–3,000 GDDs; Region 

III = 3,001–3,500 GDDs; Region IV = 3,501–4,000 

GDDs; Region V = greater than 4,000 GDDs. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 

19, 2021. 

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 the functions 

and duties in the administration and 

enforcement of these provisions to the 

TTB Administrator through Treasury 

Order 120–01, dated December 10, 2013 

(superseding Treasury Order 120–01, 

dated January 24, 2003). 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) authorizes TTB to establish 

definitive viticultural areas and regulate 

the use of their names as appellations of 

origin on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth 

standards for the preparation and 

submission to TTB of petitions for the 

establishment or modification of 

American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 

lists the approved AVAs. 

Definition 

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines 

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region having 

distinguishing features, as described in 

part 9 of the regulations, and a name 

and a delineated boundary, as 

established in part 9 of the regulations. 

These designations allow vintners and 

consumers to attribute a given quality, 

reputation, or other characteristic of a 

wine made from grapes grown in an area 

to the wine’s geographic origin. The 

establishment of AVAs allows vintners 

to describe more accurately the origin of 

their wines to consumers and helps 

consumers to identify wines they may 

purchase. Establishment of an AVA is 

neither an approval nor an endorsement 

by TTB of the wine produced in that 

area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines 

the procedure for proposing an AVA 

and 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; 

• If the proposed AVA is to be 

established within, or overlapping, an 

existing AVA, an explanation that both 

identifies the attributes of the proposed 

AVA that are consistent with the 

existing AVA and explains how the 

proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct 

from the existing AVA and therefore 

appropriate for separate recognition; 

• 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. 

The Burn of Columbia Valley Petition 

TTB received a petition from Kevin 

Corliss, Vice President of Vineyards for 

Ste. Michelle Wine Estates, Joan R. 

Davenport, Professor of Soil Sciences at 

Washington State University, and John 

Derrick, Vice President of Operations for 

Mercer Ranches, Inc., proposing to 

establish ‘‘The Burn of Columbia 

Valley’’ AVA. The proposed AVA is 

located in Klickitat County, 

Washington, and lies entirely within the 

established Columbia Valley AVA (27 

CFR 9.74). Within the 16,870-acre 

proposed AVA, there are 3 commercial 

vineyards, which cover a total of 

approximately 1,261 acres and are 

owned by two different entities. The 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

The Burn of Columbia Valley AVA are 

its soils, climate, and topography. 

The soils of the proposed The Burn of 

Columbia Valley are primarily silty 

loams in the taxonomic order Mollisols. 

The soils are described as having good 

plant-available water holding capacity 

that are capable of delivering sufficient 

water to the vines during the growing 

season. The soils are also relatively high 

in organic material and provide 

adequate nutrients, particularly 

nitrogen, to the vines. The most 

common soil series and complexes in 

the proposed AVA are Walla Walla silt 

loam (without cemented substratum), 

Rock outcrop–Haploxeroll complex, 

Haploxeroll–Fluvaquent complex, 

Fluventic Haploxeroll–Riverwash 

complex, Rock outcrop Rubble and 

Complex, Wato silt loam, Walla Walla 

silt loam (with cemented substratum), 

Endicott silt loam, and Endicott–Moxee 

complex. 

The climate within the proposed The 

Burn of Columbia Valley AVA is 

characterized by an average annual 

growing degree day 1 (GDD) 

accumulation of 2,763 GDDs, with a 

minimum of 2,405 GDDs and a 

maximum of 3,249 GDDs. The average 

annual GDD accumulations favor the 

production of grape varietals with 

higher heat unit requirements, such as 

Cabernet Sauvignon and Syrah, which 

are the two most commonly grown 

grape varietals within the proposed 

AVA. The proposed AVA receives an 

average of 8.76 inches of precipitation 

annually, with a minimum of 6.65 

inches and a maximum of 10.44 inches. 

Low annual rainfall amounts mean that 

vineyards within the proposed AVA 

require supplemental irrigation. 

The topography of the proposed The 

Burn of Columbia Valley AVA is 

comprised of gently sloping bench lands 

above the Columbia River. The average 

slope angle within the proposed AVA is 

7.27 percent, which is suitable for 

mechanical cultivation of vineyards, yet 

is steep enough to avoid the pooling of 

cold air that could damage grapes. The 

proposed AVA also has a large, 

contiguous expanse of land with 

easterly and southern aspects, as well as 

a southeasterly aspect, which allows 

excellent sunlight exposure for 

vineyards. 

To the east-northeast and northwest of 

the proposed AVA, the soils include 

series and complexes that are not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32193 

present within the proposed AVA, 

including the Renslow–Ralls–Whipple 

complex, Van Nostern silt loam, Van 

Nostern–Bakeoven complex, Colockum– 

Cheviot complex, Swalecreek–Rockley 

complex, and Goldendale silt loam. 

Average annual GDD accumulations to 

the east-northeast and northwest of the 

proposed AVA are lower, and average 

annual rainfall amounts are higher than 

within the proposed AVA. In the region 

to the south of the proposed AVA, the 

soils contain series and complexes also 

not present within the proposed AVA, 

including Ritzville silt loam, Willis silt 

loam, and Roloff–Rock outcrop 

complex. Average annual GDD 

accumulations are higher in the region 

south of the proposed AVA, as are 

average annual precipitation amounts. 

Additionally, in the region to the west 

of the proposed AVA, the soils contain 

complexes not present within the 

proposed AVA, including the Cheviot– 

Tronsen complex, Goodnoe– 

Swalecreek–Horseflat complex, and 

Asotin silt loam. The region to the west 

of the proposed AVA has lower annual 

GDD accumulations and higher average 

annual rainfall amounts. When 

compared to the proposed The Burn of 

Columbia Valley AVA, each of the 

surrounding regions has higher average 

slope angles except the region to the 

south, which has lower average slope 

angles. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

TTB published Notice No. 190 in the 

Federal Register on May 27, 2020 (85 

FR 31718), proposing to establish The 

Burn of Columbia Valley AVA. In the 

notice, TTB summarized the evidence 

from the petition regarding the name, 

boundary, and distinguishing features 

for the proposed AVA. The notice also 

compared the distinguishing features of 

the proposed AVA to the surrounding 

areas. For a detailed description of the 

evidence relating to the name, 

boundary, and distinguishing features of 

the proposed AVA, and for a detailed 

comparison of the distinguishing 

features of the proposed AVA to the 

surrounding areas, see Notice No. 190. 

In Notice No. 190, TTB solicited 

comments on the accuracy of the name, 

boundary, and other required 

information submitted in support of the 

petition. In addition, given the proposed 

The Burn of Columbia Valley AVA’s 

location within the Columbia Valley 

AVA, TTB solicited comments on 

whether the evidence submitted in the 

petition regarding the distinguishing 

features of the proposed AVA 

sufficiently differentiates it from the 

established AVA. TTB also requested 

comments on whether the geographic 

features of the proposed AVA are so 

distinguishable from the established 

Columbia Valley AVA that the proposed 

AVA should no longer be part of the 

established AVA. The comment period 

closed July 27, 2020. 

In response to Notice No. 190, TTB 

received 13 comments. The commenters 

included local wine industry members, 

local wine consumers, the Goldendale 

Chamber of Commerce, the Klickitat 

County Natural Resources & Economic 

Development Department, and the 

Columbia–Snake Rivers Irrigators 

Association. Eleven of the comments 

support creating the proposed The Burn 

of Columbia Valley AVA so as to 

distinguish this region from other areas 

within the established Columbia Valley 

AVA. One of the comments (comment 

12) did not specifically express support 

for or opposition to the proposed AVA, 

but did state that the geography and 

climate of the proposed The Burn of 

Columbia Valley AVA are ‘‘significantly 

different than the existing Columbia 

Valley AVA.’’ Only one comment 

(comment 13), submitted by an 

anonymous commenter, opposed 

establishing the proposed AVA. The 

commenter stated their belief that the 

proposed The Burn of Columbia Valley 

AVA was not sufficiently 

distinguishable from the nearby 

established Horse Heaven Hills AVA (27 

CFR 9.188) and should be included in 

that AVA instead of recognized as a new 

AVA. However, the comment did not 

include any evidence to support this 

claim. 

TTB Determination 

After careful review of the petition 

and the comments received in response 

to Notice No. 190, TTB finds that the 

evidence provided by the petitioner 

supports the establishment of The Burn 

of Columbia Valley AVA. Accordingly, 

under the authority of the FAA Act, 

section 1111(d) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 

of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes 

the ‘‘The Burn of Columbia Valley’’ 

AVA in Klickitat County, Washington, 

effective 30 days from the publication 

date of this document. 

TTB has also determined that The 

Burn of Columbia Valley AVA will 

remain part of the established Columbia 

Valley AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 

190, The Burn of Columbia Valley AVA 

shares some broad characteristics with 

the established AVA. For example, the 

proposed AVA and the Columbia Valley 

AVA both have similar average annual 

rainfall amounts. However, the 

proposed AVA can accumulate 

maximum GDDs of over 3,000 annually, 

indicating a climate that is slightly 

warmer than the rest of the much larger 

Columbia Valley AVA. Additionally, 

because the proposed The Burn of 

Columbia Valley AVA is much smaller 

than the Columbia Valley AVA, the 

proposed AVA has a greater uniformity 

of characteristics within its boundaries. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative description of the 

boundary of The Burn of Columbia 

Valley AVA in the regulatory text 

published at the end of this final rule. 

Maps 

The petitioners provided the required 

maps, and they are listed below in the 

regulatory text. The Burn of Columbia 

Valley AVA boundary may also be 

viewed on the AVA Map Explorer on 

the TTB website, at https://www.ttb.gov/ 

wine/ava-map-explorer. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. For a 

wine to be labeled with an AVA name 

or with a brand name that includes an 

AVA name, at least 85 percent of the 

wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name, and the wine must meet the 

other conditions listed in 27 CFR 

4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for 

labeling with an AVA name and that 

name appears in the brand name, then 

the label is not in compliance and the 

bottler must change the brand name and 

obtain approval of a new label. 

Similarly, if the AVA name appears in 

another reference on the label in a 

misleading manner, the bottler would 

have to obtain approval of a new label. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing an AVA name 

that was used as a brand name on a 

label approved before July 7, 1986. See 

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

With the establishment of The Burn of 

Columbia Valley AVA, its name, ‘‘The 

Burn of Columbia Valley,’’ will 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 regulations clarifies this 

point. Consequently, wine bottlers using 

the name ‘‘The Burn of Columbia 

Valley’’ in a brand name, including a 

trademark, or in another label reference 

as to the origin of the wine, will have 

to ensure that the product is eligible to 

use the AVA name as an appellation of 

origin. 

TTB is not designating ‘‘The Burn,’’ 

standing alone, as a term of viticultural 

significance because the term ‘‘The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
32194 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 115 / Thursday, June 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Burn’’ is used to refer to multiple areas 

in the United States. Therefore, wine 

bottlers using ‘‘The Burn,’’ standing 

alone, in a brand name or in another 

label reference on their wines will not 

be affected by the establishment of this 

AVA. 

The establishment of The Burn of 

Columbia Valley AVA will not affect the 

existing Columbia Valley AVA, and any 

bottlers using ‘‘Columbia Valley’’ as an 

appellation of origin or in a brand name 

for wines made from grapes grown 

within the Columbia Valley will not be 

affected by the establishment of this 

new AVA. The establishment of The 

Burn of Columbia Valley AVA will 

allow vintners to use ‘‘The Burn of 

Columbia Valley’’ and ‘‘Columbia 

Valley’’ as appellations of origin for 

wines made primarily from grapes 

grown within The Burn of Columbia 

Valley AVA if the wines meet the 

eligibility requirements for these 

appellations. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

TTB certifies that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The regulation imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of an AVA name 

would be the result of a proprietor’s 

efforts and consumer acceptance of 

wines from that area. Therefore, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

as defined by Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30, 1993. Therefore, no 

regulatory assessment is required. 

Drafting Information 

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division drafted this final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

The Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter 

I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 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 

§ 9.276 to read as follows: 

§ 9.276 The Burn of Columbia Valley. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘The 

Burn of Columbia Valley’’. For purposes 

of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘The Burn of 

Columbia Valley’’ is a term of 

viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The four United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of The Burn of 

Columbia Valley viticultural area are 

titled: 

(1) Sundale NW, OR–WA, 2017; 

(2) Goodnoe Hills, WA, 2017; 

(3) Dot, WA, 2017; and 

(4) Sundale, WA–OR, 2017. 

(c) Boundary. The Burn of Columbia 

Valley viticultural area is located in 

Klickitat County in Washington. The 

boundary of The Burn of Columbia 

Valley viticultural area is as described 

below: 

(1) The beginning point is on the 

Sundale NW map, at the intersection of 

the Columbia River and the east shore 

of Paterson Slough. From the beginning 

point, proceed northerly along the east 

shore of Paterson Slough to its junction 

with Rock Creek, and continuing 

northeasterly along Rock Creek to its 

intersection with the boundary of the 

Yakima Nation Trust Land; then 

(2) Proceed south, then east, then 

generally northeasterly along the 

boundary of the Yakima Nation Trust 

Land, crossing onto the Goodnoe Hills 

map, to the intersection of the Trust 

Land boundary with Kelley Road; then 

(3) Proceed north in a straight line to 

the intersection with the main channel 

of Chapman Creek; then 

(4) Proceed southeasterly 

(downstream) along Chapman Creek, 

crossing over the Dot map and onto the 

Sundale map, to the intersection of 

Chapman Creek with its southernmost 

tributary; then 

(5) Proceed due east in a straight line 

to the creek running through Old Lady 

Canyon; then 

(6) Proceed southerly along the creek 

to its intersection with the northern 

shoreline of the Columbia River; then 

(7) Proceed westerly along the 

northern shoreline of the Columbia 

River, returning to the beginning point. 

Signed: January 4, 2021. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: January 5, 2021. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2021–12771 Filed 6–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 45 

[Docket ID: DOD–2021–OS–0047] 

RIN 0790–AL22 

Medical Malpractice Claims by 

Members of the Uniformed Services 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD) 

Office of General Counsel, DoD. 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: This interim final rule 

implements requirements of the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 permitting 

members of the uniformed services or 

their authorized representatives to file 

claims for personal injury or death 

caused by a Department of Defense 

(DoD) health care providers s in certain 

military medical treatment facilities. 

Because Federal courts do not have 

jurisdiction to consider these claims, 

DoD is issuing this rule to provide 

uniform standards and procedures for 

considering and processing these 

actions. 

DATES: This interim final rule is in effect 

July 19, 2021. Comments must be 

received by August 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

number and title, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: The DoD cannot receive 

written comments at this time due to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. Comments should 

be sent electronically to the docket 

listed above. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing at http://www.regulations.gov 

as they are received without change, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1