33638 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

foot elevation contour and the R22E/ 

R23E boundary; then 

(10) Proceed generally westerly along 

the 1,600-foot elevation contour, 

crossing over the southeastern corner of 

the Winesap map and onto the Entiat 

map, and continuing southwesterly 

along the 1,600-foot elevation contour to 

its intersection with an unnamed stream 

in section 35, T26N/R21E; then 

(11) Proceed westerly (downstream) 

along the unnamed stream for 0.45 mile 

to its intersection with the 1,200-foot 

elevation contour; then 

(12) Proceed southerly along the 

1,200-foot elevation contour, crossing 

over the Orondo map and onto the 

Wenatchee map to the intersection of 

the elevation contour with the southern 

boundary of section 14, T23N/R20E; 

then 

(13) Proceed west-northwest in a 

straight line for 1.47 miles, crossing the 

Columbia River, to the beginning point. 

Signed: May 25, 2022. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: May 26, 2022. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2022–11709 Filed 6–2–22; 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–2020–0008; T.D. TTB–180; 

Ref: Notice No. 193] 

RIN 1513–AC58 

Establishment of the Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon 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 5,850-acre ‘‘Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon’’ 

viticultural area in Polk County, Oregon. 

The viticultural area is located entirely 

within the existing Willamette 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. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 5, 

2022. 

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 

provisions pursuant to section 1111(d) 

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

as codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In 

addition, the Secretary of the Treasury 

has delegated certain administrative and 

enforcement authorities to TTB through 

Treasury Order 120–01. 

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 allows any interested party to 

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 to 

establish or modify 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; 

• 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. 

Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 

Petition 

TTB received a petition from the 

representatives of the vineyards and 

wineries within the proposed AVA, 

proposing to establish the ‘‘Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon’’ AVA. The 

proposed AVA is located in Polk 

County, Oregon, and lies entirely within 

the established Willamette Valley AVA 

(27 CFR 9.90). Within the approximately 

5,850-acre proposed AVA, there are 10 

commercial vineyards which cover a 

total of approximately 531 acres, as well 

as 2 wineries. The petition notes that 

vineyard owners also plan to expand 4 

of the existing vineyards by a total of 

164 acres. The distinguishing features of 

the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon AVA are its topography, 

climate, geology, and soils. 

The proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon AVA is located on a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33639 

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. 

small mountain in the hills of the 

Willamette Valley. Elevations range 

from 260 feet at the foot of the mountain 

to 835 feet at the peak. The proposed 

AVA is surrounded in all directions by 

lower elevations of the Willamette 

Valley floor. The petition states that the 

proposed AVA’s elevated location 

protects the proposed AVA from the 

higher wind speeds that occur on the 

valley floor. 

According to the petition, 

temperatures within the proposed 

Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 

AVA are cooler than the regions to the 

east and north-northeast, with average 

annual growing degree day 1 (GDD) 

accumulation of 2,543 GDDs. The 

average annual GDD accumulations 

favor the production of grape varietals 

such pinot noir, pinot gris, and 

chardonnay, which are the most 

commonly grown grape varietals within 

the proposed AVA. In comparison, GDD 

accumulations in the city of Salem, 

approximately 18 miles east of the 

proposed AVA, averaged 2,903 GDDs, 

and the town of McMinnville, 23 miles 

to the north-northeast of the proposed 

AVA, averaged 2661 GDDs. 

The proposed AVA also has lower 

average wind speeds than the regions to 

the east and north-northeast. The 

average wind speed within the proposed 

Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 

AVA is 2.3 miles per hour (mph), while 

winds in the city of Salem average 6.1 

mph, and winds in the town of 

McMinnville average 5.2 mph. 

According to the petition, high winds 

can break new grapevine shoots and 

desiccate grapes. 

The petition states that the proposed 

Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 

AVA is bounded topographically 

around a unique geological formation 

that only occurs within the proposed 

AVA. The parent material of the 

mountain comes from the Siletz River 

volcanics of the middle and lower 

Eocene and Paleocene (approximately 

40 to 60 million years ago). The rocks 

are zeolotized (contain aluminum) and 

veined with calcite, and were sea floor 

mountains. The Siletz River volcanics 

are exposed near the summit of Mount 

Pisgah, where it directly affects the soils 

and viticulture. The Siletz River 

volcanics are the oldest rocks in the 

Willamette Valley, and occur below 

marine sediments six miles from the 

Willamette River, which makes the 

proposed AVA unique, according to the 

petition. Because the geology of the 

proposed AVA is different from that of 

the surrounding regions, grapevine roots 

within the proposed AVA will have 

access to a different set of minerals and 

nutrients than grapevines grown 

elsewhere. 

The geology of the proposed Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA also 

affects the composition of the soils. 

According to the petition, 97.2 percent 

of the soils within the proposed AVA 

contain colluvium or residuum as 

parent material, both of which are 

ancient sedimentary soils. The only 

alluvial parent material in the area is 

old alluvium coming from the Missoula 

Flood, which comprises 2.1 percent of 

the proposed AVA. The soils generally 

have fine to coarse grains with 

calcareous concretions and are 

carbonaceous and micaceous. The main 

soil series in the proposed AVA are silty 

clay loams, which make up 92.1 percent 

of all soils within the proposed AVA 

and include the Bellpine, Jory, Nekia, 

Rickreall, and Willakenzie soil series. 

The soils are classified as well drained 

but also have adequate water-holding 

capabilities, which enables dry farming 

within the proposed AVA. 

By comparison, the areas surrounding 

the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon AVA all contain 

alluvial deposits from the recent 

quaternary period, instead of 

sedimentary deposits. To the north of 

the proposed AVA, soils are clayey 

alluvium and do not drain as well as the 

soils within the proposed AVA. To the 

west of the proposed AVA, the soils are 

alluvial loam and are more poorly 

drained. To the south of the proposed 

AVA, soils are silty alluvial. To the east 

of the proposed AVA, soils are silty 

alluvium and alluvial loam and also do 

not drain as well as the soils in the 

proposed AVA. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

TTB published Notice No. 193 in the 

Federal Register on October 1, 2020 (85 

FR 61907), proposing to establish the 

Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 

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. 193. 

In Notice No. 193, 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 

AVA’s location within the Willamette 

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 

Willamette Valley AVA that the 

proposed AVA should no longer be part 

of the established AVA. The comment 

period closed November 30, 2020. 

In response to Notice No. 193, TTB 

received 19 comments. Commenters 

included local vineyard and winery 

owners, winemakers, and vineyard 

managers. All 19 of the comments 

support the establishment of the 

proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 

Oregon AVA. 

Proposal To Modify Proposed AVA 

Name 

One comment (comment 7) supports 

the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County Oregon AVA but also suggests 

modifying the name. The comment 

claims that, while other regions known 

as ‘‘Mount Pisgah’’ exist in Oregon, 

those regions are not conducive to 

viticulture. Therefore, the comment 

recommends shortening the proposed 

name to ‘‘Mount Pisgah.’’ Two of the 

other comments support this idea of a 

shortened name (comments 13 and 15), 

with one of the comments (comment 15) 

noting that the other regions in Oregon 

known as Mount Pisgah are located on 

public lands and are unlikely to be 

available for commercial viticulture. 

TTB Response 

One of the purposes of designating 

AVAs is to provide consumers more 

information about the origin of the 

grapes used to make the wine. Because 

there are at least three geographic 

features in Oregon known as ‘‘Mount 

Pisgah,’’ TTB believes that it is 

important to clarify to which feature the 

wine label refers. Although the 

commenters state that the proposed 

AVA is the only ‘‘Mount Pisgah’’ where 

viticulture takes place in Oregon, 

consumers might not be aware of this 

and might assume that the AVA name 

refers to one of the other regions. 

Therefore, TTB believes that including 

the county in the proposed AVA name 

is necessary in order to reduce the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33640 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

chance of consumer confusion. 

Additionally, because Polk County is a 

common county name within the U.S., 

and multiple States have geographic 

features known as ‘‘Mount Pisgah,’’ TTB 

does not believe that shortening the 

proposed AVA name to ‘‘Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County’’ would sufficiently 

identify the proposed AVA’s location. 

For these reasons, TTB is not 

considering establishing the AVA with 

an abbreviated shortened name. 

Proposal To Expand the Proposed AVA 

One comment (comment 8) supports 

the establishment of the Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon AVA but also 

requests modifying the proposed 

boundary. The comment, submitted on 

behalf of Atlas Vineyard Management, 

Inc., requests extending the proposed 

AVA boundary southward to include a 

65-acre vineyard on a neighboring hill. 

The comment claims that the climate, 

topography, geology, and soils of the 

proposed expansion area are similar to 

those of the proposed AVA. As 

evidence, the comment included 

information on the GDDs, mean July 

temperature, wind speeds, elevation, 

slope aspect, geology, and soils of the 

proposed expansion area. 

Four other comments submitted in 

response to Notice No. 193 address this 

boundary modification, and all four 

comments oppose it (comments 11, 12, 

13, and 15). Two comments (comments 

11 and 15) oppose the proposed 

expansion, in part, because they claim 

the proposed ‘‘Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon’’ name does not apply 

to the proposed expansion area, which 

is located on a separate geographic 

feature known as Fishback Hill. Several 

of the comments also include anecdotal 

evidence of temperature differences 

between the proposed AVA and the 

proposed expansion area, noting that 

they have encountered ice or rain in the 

region of the proposed expansion area 

on days when the proposed AVA was 

free of ice or rain. 

Comments 12 and 15 both address the 

soil evidence in the request to expand 

the proposed AVA. Both comments 

claim that the soils of the proposed 

AVA are, in fact, distinguishable from 

those of the proposed expansion area. 

Comment 12 claims that the proposed 

expansion area contains more 

Willakenzie soils than the proposed 

AVA. Comment 15 claims that a 

combination of marine sediments and 

volcanic basalt is unique to the 

proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 

Oregon AVA, as stated in the proposed 

AVA petition. The comment goes on to 

say that, contrary to the claims in the 

expansion proposal, there are at least 

five acres of vines planted on this 

combination of soils at the summit of 

Mount Pisgah. Comment 15 also states 

that the Spencer Formation, which the 

expansion proposal claims is a geologic 

formation shared by the proposed AVA 

and the proposed expansion area, 

stretches nearly the entire length of the 

Willamette Valley AVA. As a result, the 

comment claims the fact that the 

proposed AVA and the proposed 

expansion area share this underlying 

geologic feature is simply a coincidence 

and not a distinctive feature of the two 

regions. 

Finally, comment 13 addresses the 

GDD and wind speed data included in 

the expansion proposal. The comment 

notes that the 2015–2018 April/May 

GDD accumulations from the proposed 

expansion area are lower than those of 

the proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon AVA. The comment 

states that lower GDD accumulations in 

these months can result in bud break 

and bloom dates that are later than in 

the proposed AVA. The comment also 

notes that the 2016 April/May and June/ 

October wind speeds are 20 and 40 

percent higher, respectively, in the 

proposed expansion area than they are 

in the proposed AVA. 

TTB Response 

After examining the information 

provided, TTB has determined that 

there is not sufficient evidence to 

support inclusion of the proposed 

expansion area at this time. The 

information presented does not show 

that the proposed expansion area shares 

the distinguishing features or name 

evidence of the proposed Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon AVA. First, TTB 

has determined that the comment 

requesting the expanded boundaries 

does not include evidence that the 

proposed AVA name extends to the 

proposed expansion area. 

Additionally, based on the 

information provided, TTB also found 

that several aspects of the climate, 

geologic, and soil features of the 

proposed AVA appear to be dissimilar 

to those of the expansion area proposed 

in comment 8. First, comment 8 

included one year of wind speed data 

(2016) from within both the proposed 

expansion area and the proposed AVA 

and two years of data (2017–2018) from 

the proposed expansion area and two 

regions on the Willamette Valley floor 

outside of the proposed AVA. Although 

the two-year data suggests that the 

proposed expansion area has wind 

speeds lower than those found on the 

Willamette Valley floor, the 2016 data 

suggests that wind speeds in the 

proposed expansion area may be 

consistently higher than those within 

the proposed AVA. Without additional 

wind speed data from within both the 

proposed expansion area and the 

proposed AVA, TTB cannot determine 

that the proposed expansion area’s wind 

speeds are similar enough to warrant 

inclusion in the proposed Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County AVA. 

Furthermore, based on the 

information in comment 8, the earlyseason GDDs of the proposed expansion 

area also appear to be different from 

those of the proposed Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon AVA. The 

comment included 2014–2016 GDD data 

from within the proposed expansion 

area, the proposed AVA, and two 

locations on the Willamette Valley floor. 

The comment also included 2017–2018 

GDD data from within the proposed 

expansion area and the two locations on 

the valley floor, but not from within the 

proposed AVA. Although the 2014– 

2016 GDDs in both the proposed AVA 

and the proposed expansion area are 

lower than those found in the two 

locations on the valley floor, the 2014– 

2016 April/May GDD accumulations are 

noticeably lower in the proposed 

expansion area than in the proposed 

AVA. Furthermore, the 2014–2016 

seasonal GDD accumulations for the 

proposed expansion area are also lower 

than those for the proposed AVA. 

Therefore, TTB does not believe that 

comment 8 provided sufficient evidence 

to show that the proposed AVA and the 

proposed expansion share similar GDD 

accumulations. 

With regard to geologic features, 

comment 8 notes that the Spencer 

Formation is present beneath both the 

proposed expansion area and the 

proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 

Oregon AVA. However, the proposed 

AVA petition did not describe the 

presence of the Spencer Formation as a 

distinguishing feature. The presence of 

the Siletz River volcanics is the 

distinguishing geologic feature of the 

proposed AVA, and it does not appear 

to occur in the proposed expansion area. 

Therefore, TTB does not believe that 

comment 8 provided sufficient evidence 

to show that the proposed expansion 

area shares the distinguishing geologic 

feature of the proposed AVA. 

Based on the soil map included in the 

expansion request comment (comment 

8), TTB cannot determine conclusively 

whether Willakenzie soils are more 

prevalent in the proposed expansion 

area than in the proposed AVA, as 

suggested in comment 12. However, 

based on the same map, TTB does 

believe that the proposed expansion 

area lacks the Nekia soils, which the 

proposed AVA petition states make up 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 33641 

8.1 percent of the soils in the proposed 

AVA. The map also appears to show 

that Rickreal soils, which comprise 7.8 

percent of the proposed AVA soils, are 

not as common in the proposed 

expansion area, and that Dupee soils 

may be more common in the proposed 

expansion area than in the proposed 

AVA. For these reasons, TTB has 

determined that comment 8 provided 

insufficient evidence to show that the 

proposed expansion area shares the 

distinctive soil composition of the 

proposed Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 

Oregon AVA. 

TTB Determination 

After careful review of the petition 

and the comments received in response 

to Notice No. 193, TTB finds that the 

evidence provided by the petitioner 

supports the establishment of the Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA, as 

originally proposed. TTB is not 

expanding the Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon AVA to include the 

region requested in comment 8, 

although TTB would be willing to 

consider a separate petition to establish 

a new AVA in that region or a separate 

expansion petition that provides the 

requisite name and distinguishing 

features information. 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 ‘‘Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 

Oregon’’ AVA in Polk County, Oregon, 

effective 30 days from the publication 

date of this document. 

TTB has also determined that the 

Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon 

AVA will remain part of the established 

Willamette Valley AVA. As discussed in 

Notice No. 193, the Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon AVA shares some broad 

characteristics with the established 

AVA. For example, the Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon AVA and the 

Willamette Valley AVA do not contain 

elevations over 1,000 feet. Additionally, 

both areas contain mostly silty and clay 

loam soils. However, the Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon AVA differs from 

the Willamette Valley AVA because it is 

located entirely on a small mountain 

with elevations that are higher than 

those of the surrounding valley floor. 

Due to its higher elevations, wind 

speeds within the AVA are lower than 

in other parts of the Willamette Valley 

AVA that have lower elevations. Lastly, 

the Siletz River volcanics parent 

material is a unique geological feature 

which occurs within the Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon AVA but not 

within the remainder of the Willamette 

Valley AVA. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative description of the 

boundary of the Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon 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 Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon 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 Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA, its 

name, ‘‘Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 

Oregon,’’ 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 is also designating 

‘‘Mt. Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon’’ as a 

term of viticultural significance, and is 

allowing the word ‘‘Mount’’ to be 

abbreviated as ‘‘Mt.’’ The text of the 

regulations clarifies this point. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using the 

name ‘‘Mount (or ‘‘Mt.’’) Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon’’ 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 ‘‘Mount (or ‘‘Mt.’’) Pisgah,’’ 

by itself, as a term of viticultural 

significance due to the number of 

locations in the United States known as 

Mount Pisgah. Therefore, wine bottlers 

using ‘‘Mount (or ‘‘Mt.’’) Pisgah,’’ 

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 Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon AVA will 

not affect the existing Willamette Valley 

AVA, and any bottlers using 

‘‘Willamette Valley’’ as an appellation of 

origin or in a brand name for wines 

made from grapes grown within the 

Willamette Valley will not be affected 

by the establishment of this new AVA. 

The establishment of the Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon AVA will allow 

vintners to use ‘‘Mount (or ‘‘Mt.’’) 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon’’ and 

‘‘Willamette Valley’’ as appellations of 

origin for wines made primarily from 

grapes grown within the Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon AVA if the wines 

meet the eligibility requirements for the 

appellation. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33642 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

■ 2. Subpart C is amended by adding 

§ 9.284 to read as follows: 

§ 9.284 Mount Pisgah, Polk County, 

Oregon. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon’’. The word 

‘‘Mount’’ may be abbreviated as ‘‘Mt.’’ 

in the name of this AVA. For purposes 

of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Mount Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon’’ and ‘‘Mt. Pisgah, 

Polk County, Oregon’’ are terms of 

viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The two United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the Mount 

Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon viticultural 

area are titled: 

(1) Dallas, OR, 2014; and 

(2) Airlie North, OR, 2014. 

(c) Boundary. The Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon viticultural area is 

located in Polk County in Oregon. The 

boundary of the Mount Pisgah, Polk 

County, Oregon viticultural area is as 

described below: 

(1) The beginning point is on the 

Dallas map at the point where the 320- 

foot elevation contour intersects 

Mistletoe Road south of the unnamed 

road known locally as SE Lewis Street. 

From the beginning point, proceed 

south along Mistletoe Road for 

approximately 2 miles to the road’s 

second intersection with the 740-foot 

elevation contour; then 

(2) Proceed due west approximately 

0.5 miles to the 400-foot elevation 

contour; then 

(3) Proceed south along the 400-foot 

elevation contour, crossing onto the 

Airlie North map, to the contour’s 

intersection with Cooper Hollow Road 

near Fisher Reservoir; then 

(4) Proceed southeasterly along 

Cooper Hollow Road to its intersection 

with McCaleb Road; then 

(5) Proceed east, then northeast, then 

east along McCaleb Road for 

approximately 1.6 miles to its 

intersection with Mistletoe Road and 

the 260-foot elevation contour; then 

(6) Proceed easterly along the 260-foot 

elevation contour until it intersects 

again with Mistletoe Road; then 

(7) Proceed east along Mistletoe Road 

for 0.3 mile to its intersection with 

Matney Road; then 

(8) Proceed north along Matney Road 

for 0.6 mile to its intersection with the 

260-foot elevation contour at a 90 degree 

turn in the road; then 

(9) Proceed northwesterly along the 

260-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with Bursell Road; then 

(10) Proceed east along Bursell Road 

for 0.2 mile to its intersection with the 

260-foot elevation contour; then 

(11) Proceed north along the 260-foot 

elevation contour, crossing onto the 

Dallas map, to the contour’s intersection 

with Whiteaker Road; then 

(12) Proceed southeasterly along 

Whiteaker Road for 1.0 mile to its 

intersection with the 260-foot elevation 

contour at a 90 degree turn in the road; 

then 

(13) Proceed north, then west along 

the 260-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with Ballard Road; then 

(14) Proceed south along Ballard Road 

to its intersection with the 300-foot 

elevation contour; then 

(15) Proceed northwesterly along the 

300-foot elevation contour, to its 

intersection with Cherry Knoll Road; 

then 

(16) Proceed south along Cherry Knoll 

Road to its intersection with the 320- 

foot elevation contour; then 

(17) Proceed northwesterly along the 

320-foot elevation contour, returning to 

the beginning point. 

Signed: May 25, 2022. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: May 26, 2022. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2022–11715 Filed 6–2–22; 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–2021–0001; T.D. TTB–182; 

Ref: Notice No. 200] 

RIN 1513–AC73 

Establishment of the Upper Lake 

Valley Viticultural Area and 

Modification of the Clear Lake 

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 17,360-acre ‘‘Upper Lake 

Valley’’ viticultural area in Lake County, 

California. TTB also expands the 

boundary of the existing 1,093-square 

mile Clear Lake viticultural area so that 

the Upper Lake Valley viticultural area 

is wholly within it. Both viticultural 

areas are located within the established 

North Coast 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. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 5, 

2022. 

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, once 

approved, a name and a delineated 

boundary codified in part 9 of the 

regulations. These designations allow 

vintners and consumers to attribute a 

given quality, reputation, or other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES