67616 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2010–0002; T.D. TTB–87; 

Re: Notice No. 104] 

RIN 1513–AB65 

Yamhill-Carlton Viticultural Area 

(2008R–305P) 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: This Treasury decision 

renames the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ 

viticultural area, located in Yamhill and 

Washington Counties, Oregon, as the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ viticultural area. We 

designate 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: Effective Date: December 3, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. 

Sutton, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 

158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 

415–271–1254. 

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 

requires that these regulations, 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 regulations 

promulgated under the FAA Act. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) allows the establishment of 

definitive viticultural areas and 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) contains the 

list of approved viticultural areas. 

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 

distinguishable by geographical 

features, the boundaries of which have 

been recognized and defined 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 its 

geographical origin. The establishment 

of viticultural areas allows vintners to 

describe more accurately the origin of 

their wines to consumers and helps 

consumers to identify wines they may 

purchase. Establishment of a viticultural 

area is neither an approval nor an 

endorsement by TTB of the wine 

produced in that area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations outlines the procedure for 

proposing an American viticultural area 

and provides that any interested party 

may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area. 

Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations 

requires the petition to include— 

• Evidence that the proposed 

viticultural area is locally and/or 

nationally known by the name specified 

in the petition; 

• Historical or current evidence that 

supports setting the boundary of the 

proposed viticultural area as the 

petition specifies; 

• Evidence relating to the 

geographical features, such as climate, 

soils, elevation, and physical features 

that distinguish the proposed 

viticultural area from surrounding areas; 

• A description of the specific 

boundary of the proposed viticultural 

area, based on features found on United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; 

and 

• A copy of the appropriate USGS 

map(s) with the proposed viticultural 

area’s boundary prominently marked. 

Yamhill-Carlton District Viticultural 

Area Background 

In 2002, TTB’s predecessor Agency, 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 

Firearms, received a petition from Mr. 

Alex Sokol-Blosser, Secretary of the 

North Willamette Valley [American 

Viticultural Area] Group, and Mr. Ken 

Wright, on behalf of certain grape 

growers, to establish a new viticultural 

area called the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District.’’ Located in northwestern 

Oregon, the Yamhill-Carlton District is 

about 35 miles southwest of Portland, 

Oregon, and 25 miles from the Pacific 

Ocean, in Yamhill and Washington 

Counties, Oregon, and entirely within 

the larger Willamette Valley viticultural 

area (27 CFR 9.90). 

On October 7, 2003, TTB published in 

the Federal Register (68 FR 57845) 

Notice No. 19, proposing the 

establishment of the Yamhill-Carlton 

District viticultural area. In response to 

that notice, the only comment TTB 

received was in support of the proposed 

establishment. On December 9, 2004, 

TTB published in the Federal Register 

(69 FR 71372) Treasury Decision (T.D.) 

TTB–20, establishing the YamhillCarlton District viticultural area (27 CFR 

9.183) as proposed. 

T.D. TTB–20 states that the YamhillCarlton District viticultural area 

boundary line surrounds the towns of 

Yamhill and Carlton, which lie 3 miles 

apart, along Route 47, in Yamhill 

County. The ‘‘Name Evidence’’ section 

states that the first time the two names 

were used together was in the 1853 

establishment of the Yamhill-Carlton 

Pioneer Cemetery. The cemetery is 

identified on the USGS Carlton 

Quadrangle map (published in 1957; 

revised in 1992). The name was used 

again in 1955, when the YamhillCarlton Union High School was 

established in the Yamhill-Carlton 

School District. Residents still use the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ name today. 

Petition To Change to the YamhillCarlton District Viticultural Area Name 

In 2008, Mr. Ken Wright, of Ken 

Wright Cellars, submitted a petition to 

TTB to change the name of the 

viticultural area from ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District’’ to ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton.’’ In this 

petition, Mr. Wright asserts that when 

the viticultural area was originally 

proposed ‘‘[t]he inclusion of the word 

‘District’ was completely discretionary 

and added only to enforce the idea of 

the AVA [American viticultural area] 

being a regionalized area.’’ Further, he 

states that ‘‘[h]istorically, the area has 

always been referred to as simply 

‘Yamhill-Carlton.’ Additionally, the 

length of the current name is very 

difficult to fit on a [wine] label. Many 

wineries have found it impossible, given 

their current label graphics, to utilize 

the name.’’ 

Many others joined Mr. Wright, 

writing letters included with the 

petition, in support of renaming the 

Yamhill-Carlton District viticultural 

area as the Yamhill-Carlton viticultural 

area. Kathie Oriet, Mayor of the city of 

Carlton, Oregon, wrote: ‘‘As Mayor of 

the small city of Carlton, I feel the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 67617 

viticultural area designation should 

represent the more commonly known 

name of Yamhill-Carlton. Many area 

joint ventures are known as YamhillCarlton in both Yamhill and Carlton, 

including the local school district, local 

sports groups and even the community 

luncheon group.’’ 

Laurent Montalieu, winemaker at 

Solena Cellars, stated: ‘‘Historically, the 

area has been more commonly referred 

to [as] Yamhill-Carlton rather than the 

Yamhill-Carlton District, as well as the 

wines.’’ Mr. Mantalieu also noted that a 

change to the shorter ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ 

would be helpful in printing [wine] 

labels. 

David Grooters, owner of Carlton 

Cellars, explained: ‘‘The area is always 

referred to as Yamhill-Carlton. As in: ‘I 

went to Yamhill-Carlton High School,’ 

or ‘I grew up in Yamhill-Carlton.’ The 

simpler Yamhill-Carlton AVA [name] 

would be much preferable for use in our 

labeling and marketing materials.’’ 

Brian O’Donnell of Belle Pente 

Vineyard and Winery stated that the 

region is more generally known as 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton,’’ not ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District.’’ Mr. O’Donnell added: ‘‘I 

believe that there is a broad consensus 

with the Yamhill-Carlton winegrower 

community that making this change is 

the right thing to do, and I hope that the 

TTB will be able to take action.’’ 

Jacki Bessler of Barbara Thomas 

Wines stated that shortening the name 

‘‘will greatly impact our ability to 

attractively place the AVA designation 

on our label. Perhaps more important, 

however, is that by adding the word 

‘District’ to Yamhill-Carlton, we have 

actually moved away [from] historical 

and geographic accuracy. I personally 

know of no other geographic, public, 

historic, or other Yamhill-Carlton name 

that has the term ‘district’ attached. We 

are known, simply, by Yamhill-Carlton.’’ 

Name Evidence 

TTB notes that the 2002 petition to 

establish the Yamhill-Carlton District 

viticultural area included entries in the 

local telephone book for the YamhillCarlton School District and the YamhillCarlton High School. 

The current petition provides several 

recent examples of usage of the YamhillCarlton name without the word 

‘‘District.’’ On March 17, 2007, the 

Community Press newspaper ran an 

advertisement for a dance sponsored by 

the Yamhill-Carlton Booster Club at the 

Yamhill-Carlton High School cafeteria. 

The Lincoln County School District 

Boys Basketball online schedule 

(accessed February 11, 2008) showed 

that the Yamhill-Carlton Tournament 

had been scheduled for November 30 

and December 1, 2007. The Oregonian, 

a newspaper published in Portland, 

reported ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 6, Seaside 5’’ 

in prep baseball (date unknown). A 

flyer, distributed by the Yamhill-Carlton 

Anti-Drug Coalition to announce it 

would meet on January 25, [2008] at 7 

p.m., was addressed to ‘‘Dear YamhillCarlton Community Partner.’’ On 

February 11, 2008, ‘‘The Statesman 

Journal’’ reported biographical 

information online about Ed Glad, 

candidate for State Representative and 

formerly a member of the YamhillCarlton High School Site Counsel, 

according to the petition. 

Additional examples of the use of the 

Yamhill-Carlton name provided with 

the petition include: (1) An e-mail 

announcing the Yamhill-Carlton 

Community Luncheon; (2) a brown bag 

lunch event with the police chiefs of 

Yamhill and Carlton as the guest 

speakers at Yamhill City Hall, on 

February 12, 2008; (3) a June 1, 2008, 

photograph showing the sign for the 

‘‘Historic Yamhill-Carlton Pioneer 

Memorial Cemetery, Established 1853’’; 

and (4) a listing for the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

FFA Alumni’’ with the Oregon Future 

Farmers of America Association. 

Search for the Term ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ 

A TTB query of the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ 

name on the USGS Geographic Names 

Information System database yielded no 

hits for the exact ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ 

name usage. However, our query of the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ name using an 

Internet search engine yielded 44,000 

results, some of which reference the 

existing Yamhill-Carlton District 

viticultural area within the general area 

of the Yamhill-Carlton region in 

northwest Oregon. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

On March 4, 2010, TTB published in 

the Federal Register (75 FR 9831) 

Notice No.104 setting forth a proposal to 

change the Yamhill-Carlton District 

viticultural area name to YamhillCarlton. We received no comments in 

response to that notice; we had received 

five letters of comment, all in support of 

the name change, with Mr. Wright’s 

2008 petition. 

TTB Finding 

After careful review of the petition, 

TTB finds that the evidence submitted 

supports changing the name of the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ viticultural 

area to ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton.’’ Therefore, 

under the authority of the Federal 

Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 

of our regulations, we amend § 9.183 of 

the TTB regulations to re-name the 

Yamhill-Carlton District viticultural 

area as the Yamhill-Carlton viticultural 

area, effective 30 days from the 

publication date of this document. 

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. With 

approval of this viticultural area name 

change, the new name, ‘‘YamhillCarlton,’’ will be recognized under 27 

CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a term of viticultural 

significance. The text of the amended 

regulation clarifies this point. This 

name change will affect vintners who 

currently and properly use the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ viticultural 

area name as explained in the 

Transition Period for ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District’’ Labels discussion below. 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ has been recognized 

as a term of viticultural significance by 

TTB since the establishment of the 

Yamhill-Carlton District viticultural 

area. Therefore, dropping ‘‘District’’ from 

the viticultural area name will not 

change the viticultural significance of 

the term ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton.’’ 

For a wine to be labeled with a 

viticultural area name or with a brand 

name that includes a viticultural area 

name or other term identified as being 

viticulturally significant in part 9 of the 

TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of 

the wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name or other term, 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 the viticultural 

area name or other viticulturally 

significant term and that name or term 

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 viticultural area name 

or other term of viticultural significance 

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 a viticultural 

area name or other term of viticultural 

significance that was used as a brand 

name on a label approved before July 7, 

1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. 

Transition Period for ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District’’ Labels 

With adoption of the final rule 

renaming this viticultural area, under 

the new regulatory text, current holders 

of labels that were approved before the 

effective date of the final rule that use 

the ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ name to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
67618 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

designate a viticultural area will be 

permitted to use those approved labels 

during a 2-year transition period. At the 

end of the 2-year period, holders of 

approved ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ 

wine labels must discontinue their use 

as their certificates of label approval 

will be revoked by operation of the final 

rule. (See 27 CFR 13.51 and 13.72(a)(2).) 

The new regulatory text includes a 

statement to this effect as a new 

paragraph (d) in § 9.183. We believe the 

2-year period will provide such label 

holders with adequate time to use up 

their supply of previously approved 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ labels. 

TTB notes that label holders who 

continue to use labels showing the 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton District’’ name during 

the transition period also may apply for 

certificates of label approval with the 

Yamhill-Carlton name, and use such 

labels, if approved. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this regulation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This regulation imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of a viticultural 

area name is 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 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 

Drafting Information 

N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and 

Rulings Division drafted this notice. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

The Regulatory Amendment 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we amend title 27 CFR, 

chapter 1, part 9, 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. Section 9.183 is amended by 

revising the section heading, paragraph 

(a), and the introductory text of 

paragraphs (b) and (c), and by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 9.183 Yamhill-Carlton. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is 

‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’. For purposes of part 

4 of this chapter, ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton’’ is a 

term of viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The appropriate 

maps for determining the boundary of 

the Yamhill-Carlton viticultural area are 

eight 1:24,000 scale United States 

Geological Survey topography maps. 

They are titled: 

* * * * * 

(c) Boundary. The Yamhill-Carlton 

viticultural area is located in Yamhill 

and Washington Counties, Oregon, and 

is entirely within the Willamette Valley 

viticultural area. The Yamhill-Carlton 

viticultural area is limited to lands at or 

above 200 feet in elevation and at or 

below 1,000 feet in elevation within its 

boundary, which is described as 

follows— 

* * * * * 

(d) From February 7, 2005, until 

December 2, 2010, the name of this 

viticultural area was ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District’’. Effective December 3, 2010, 

this viticulture area is named ‘‘YamhillCarlton’’. Existing certificates of label 

approval showing ‘‘Yamhill-Carlton 

District’’ as an appellation of origin are 

revoked by operation of this regulation 

on December 3, 2012. 

Signed: July 20, 2010. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

Approved: September 2, 2010. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2010–27739 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0902] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: Richardson Ash 

Scattering by Fireworks, San 

Francisco, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone in 

the navigable waters of San Francisco 

Bay 1,500 feet off Yellow Bluff, 

Sausalito, CA during a fireworks display 

in support of the Richardson Ash 

Scattering. This safety zone is 

established to ensure the safety of 

participants and spectators from the 

dangers associated with the 

pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or remaining in 

the safety zone without permission from 

the Captain of the Port or her designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 3:30 

p.m. through 7 p.m. on November 6, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

0902 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–0902 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They 

are also available for inspection or 

copying at the Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail Ensign Liz Ellerson, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; 

telephone 415–399–7436, e-mail D11- 

PF-MarineEvents@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule, as it would be 

impracticable because the event would 

occur before the rulemaking process 

would be completed. Because of the 

dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used 

in this fireworks display, the safety zone 

is necessary to provide for the safety of 

event participants, spectators, spectator 

craft, and other vessels transiting the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES