[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56544-56549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22596]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2011-0009; T.D. TTB-106; Ref: Notice Nos. 123 and 123A]
RIN 1513-AB67
Establishment of the Middleburg Virginia 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 198-square mile ``Middleburg Virginia'' viticultural
area in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties in northern Virginia. TTB
designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to
[[Page 56545]]
better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to
better identify wines they may purchase.
DATES: Effective Date: October 15, 2012.
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
January 21, 2003, 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) 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) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas and lists
the approved American 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 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 its
geographic 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 grape-growing region
as a viticultural area. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or
modification of American viticultural areas. Such petitions must
include the following:
Evidence that the area within the proposed viticultural
area boundary is nationally or locally known by the viticultural area
name specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed viticultural area;
A narrative description of the features of the proposed
viticultural area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation, that make it distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed viticultural
area boundary;
A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey
(USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed viticultural area,
with the boundary of the proposed viticultural area clearly drawn
thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed
viticultural area boundary based on USGS map markings.
Middleburg Virginia Petition
In August 2008, TTB received a petition from Rachel E. Martin,
executive vice president of Boxwood Winery in Middleburg, Virginia,
proposing the establishment of the ``Middleburg Virginia'' American
viticultural area in portions of Loudoun and Fauquier Counties in
northern Virginia. The petition states that the proposed viticultural
area derives its name from the Town of Middleburg, Virginia, and it is
bounded by the Potomac River to the north and by mountains to the east,
south, and west. The petition notes that the proposed viticultural area
covers approximately 190-square miles (121,600 acres) and contains 229
acres of commercial vineyards and 12 wineries.
In July 2009, Ms. Martin submitted to TTB a modification to the
proposed Middleburg Virginia viticultural area boundary line in order
to include several additional vineyards within the proposed
viticultural area. The modification increased the size of the proposed
viticultural area by 1,920 acres in the Burnt Mill Run area, east of
Zulla, on the USGS Rectortown map. According to the petitioner, the
additional acreage has the same distinguishing features as the
originally proposed viticultural area. With the petitioner's modified
boundary line, the proposed Middleburg Virginia viticultural area
contains 251 acres of commercial grape growing in 10 vineyards and 14
wineries. With the petitioner's agreement, TTB also made several small
modifications to the originally-proposed boundary line in order to
better match the provided maps with the petition's narrative boundary
description. These changes were made in the vicinity of the town of
Marshall and Little Cobbler Mountain and near the hamlet of Airmont
along Route 734 and added approximately 5 square miles (3,200 acres) to
the proposed viticultural area. TTB notes that the proposed
viticultural area does not overlap or otherwise affect any established
or proposed American viticultural area.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 123 in the Federal Register on November 8,
2011 (76 FR 69198), proposing to establish the Middleburg Virginia
viticultural area. In the notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the
petition regarding the name, boundary, and distinguishing features for
the proposed viticultural area. The distinguishing features of the
proposed viticultural area include climate, topography, geology, and
soil. The notice also compared the distinguishing features of the
proposed viticultural area to the surrounding area. TTB estimates that
the proposed Middleburg Virginia viticultural area, as described in
Notice No. 123, contains approximately 198-square miles (or 126,720
acres). For a description of the evidence relating to the name,
boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area
see Notice No. 123.
In Notice No. 123, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the
name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in
support of the petition. The comment period was scheduled to close on
January 9, 2012. During the comment period, the Loudoun Wine Growers
Association submitted a request to extend the comment period (comment
12), claiming that their members had been
[[Page 56546]]
unaware of the proposal. In response to the request, Ms. Rachel E.
Martin, who filed the original petition to establish the Middleburg
Virginia viticultural area, submitted a comment (comment 23) that
expressed opposition to the extension of the comment period. In the
interest of providing the public with a full opportunity to comment on
the proposed rulemaking, TTB issued Notice No. 123A, which extended the
comment period until February 27, 2012 (77 FR 2027, January 13, 2012).
Excluding the two comments received regarding the extension of the
comment period, TTB received 26 comments in response to Notice No. 123
during both the original and extended comment period. The commenters
included 17 self-identified wine industry members, including growers
and vintners; 3 commenters who did not list any affiliation; 2 food and
wine writers; Ms. Martin, the petitioner, who submitted two additional
comments; Virginia's Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry, on behalf
of the Commonwealth; and a soil scientist.
Comments in Support of Establishing the Petitioned-for AVA
Fifteen of the commenters unequivocally support the proposed
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area (comments 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25). These commenters included 10 self-
identified wine industry members, including growers, vintners, and a
wine exporter; two food and wine writers; the Secretary of Agriculture
and Forestry for the Commonwealth of Virginia; and two commenters who
stated no affiliation. Several of the comments specifically supported
the evidence that was presented in the petition and described in Notice
No. 123. For instance, comment 7, from a winery operator within the
petitioned-for viticultural area, states that the petition was ``well
researched'' and accurately describes the ``unique geographical and
agricultural'' nature of the region. Comment 9, from a local winemaker
and grape grower, applauds the petition as ``the most comprehensive I
have ever seen related to a Virginia AVA'' and believes it effectively
describes the microclimate of the area. Comment 17, from a grower to
the west and outside of the petitioned-for viticultural area, notes
that ``[the] features of the lands identified in this AVA are clearly
distinctive from the valley in which we grow grapes.'' Comment 22, from
a local grower, supports the boundaries of the petitioned-for
viticultural area, stating that ``[the] area defined accurately depicts
the consistent grape-growing area, which varies measurably from the
surrounding area.'' In comment 24, a wine writer states that the
petitioned-for viticultural area ``comprises a contiguous and distinct
microclimate that is distinct from the surrounding area.'' Finally,
comment 25, from a viticultural consultant who has worked with growers
in the region, believes the petitioned-for viticultural area should be
established and become ``one of what should eventually be many AVAs
based on specific geographic parameters,'' and describes the varied
elevations within the boundaries as resembling the elevation variations
found within the established Napa Valley and Monticello viticultural
areas.
An additional comment (comment 26) supports the establishment of
the proposed viticultural area and also requests a boundary
modification to include the commenter's vineyard in the proposed
viticultural area. The modification request is discussed later in this
document.
Comment in Opposition of Establishing the Petitioned-for AVA
Comment 27 expressly opposes the establishment of the proposed
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area because ``[t]here are sufficient
viticultural areas,'' and many of the existing viticultural areas are
``underutilized.'' The comment states that ``[a]dding yet another
designation reduces the intrinsic value of said designation'' and urges
rejecting ``this and future applications.''
TTB notes that under its regulations the number of established
viticultural areas and utilization rate of the designations are not
factors that determine whether or not a viticultural area should be
established. TTB does not believe these factors are determinative as to
whether the use of a viticultural area name on a label as an
appellation of origin would provide adequate information about the
identity and origin of the product or would be misleading.
Soil Scientist Comment
Alex Blackburn, the soil scientist whose analysis was relied upon
and cited in the petition, also submitted a comment (comment 5) to
clarify two statements attributed to him in the petition and Notice No.
123. Mr. Blackburn first explained that although the topography section
of Notice No. 123 states that fairly level terrain, like that found in
the southern region of the proposed viticultural area, is an important
characteristic for a vineyard site, steeper parcels can be prepared and
managed for use as vineyards and may have ``significant advantages
concerning the production of quality grapes.'' Secondly, Mr. Blackburn
noted that the soils section of Notice No. 123 describes the
Purcellville, Tankerville, Philomont, and Middleburg soils of the
proposed viticultural area as being ``among the best in the Blue Ridge
Physiographic Province for fruit production, and grapevines grown in
these soils have better quality with few vigor problems'' because they
are ``lower in natural fertility and in available water capacity'' than
the soils of the region outside the proposed viticultural area. Mr.
Blackburn clarified that while the statement may apply to the
Tankerville and Philomont soils, Purcellville soils ``are often
vigorous due to high natural fertility and plant available water,'' and
the Middleburg soils are very deep and fertile but are located in
drainage swales that are generally not recommended for the production
of quality grapes.
Section 9.12(a)(3) requires a petition to include a description of
the common features of a proposed viticultural area and how those
features are distinctive from the features associated with adjacent
areas outside the proposed viticultural area boundary. TTB agrees that
Mr. Blackburn's comments clarify the statements attributed to him in
the petition and Notice No. 123, but these clarifications do not affect
the evidence supporting the conclusion that the soil and terrain within
the proposed viticultural area are distinguishable from the surrounding
area.
Comments Concerning the Name of the Proposed Viticultural Area
Four comments from local vineyard owners (comments 3, 8, 10, and
14) object to the name of the proposed viticultural area, claiming that
the name ``Middleburg Virginia'' does not represent the entire region
within the proposed viticultural area, particularly the portion within
northern Loudoun County. TTB notes that none of these comments
expressly opposes the establishment of the proposed viticultural area.
Comment 3 proposes the alternative names of ``Northern Virginia''
and ``Greater Loudoun'' and suggests that the name ``Middleburg
Virginia'' might be appropriate if the size of the proposed
viticultural area was reduced to encompass a much smaller area around
the town of Middleburg. Comment 8 states that the region of northern
Loudoun County has ``no historical or geographical association with the
town of Middleburg,'' and offered the name ``Northern Piedmont'' as an
alternative. Comment 10 states that the proposed viticultural area is
too
[[Page 56547]]
large for the name ``Middleburg Virginia'' to apply to the entire area,
and suggests the proposed viticultural area be called ``Northern
Virginia Piedmont.'' Comment 14 also questions whether the proposed
name applies to the entire region within the proposed viticultural
area, but supports the establishment of a viticultural area in the
region and agrees with the proposed boundary. In response to these
concerns, Ms. Martin, the petitioner, submitted a comment (comment 13)
reiterating her belief that the proposed name is applicable to the
entire region that would be included in proposed viticultural area.
In response to these comments, TTB notes that Sec. 9.12(a)(1)
requires a petition to provide evidence that currently and directly
associates a name with the proposed viticultural area, and that the
area be known locally or nationally by that name. As stated in Notice
No. 123, the evidence provided with the petition indicates that local
residents and businesses within the proposed viticultural area use the
name ``Middleburg Virginia,'' and that the name ``Middleburg Virginia''
accurately describes the general region in which the proposed
viticultural area is located rather than only the town of Middleburg.
Although the three commenters claim that the proposed ``Middleburg
Virginia'' name does not apply to the entire proposed viticultural
area, they offered no evidence to refute the name evidence provided in
the petition and Notice No. 123. Additionally, the commenters did not
submit any evidence in support of the alternative proposed names that
they assert more accurately describe the entire proposed viticultural
area than the ``Middleburg Virginia'' name.
Comments Proposing Changes to the Boundary
Four comments (comments 2, 10, 15 and 26) suggest modifications to
the proposed boundary line. Comment 2 suggests adjusting the proposed
western portion of the boundary line to coincide with the eastern
boundary of the established Shenandoah Valley viticultural area farther
to the west, in order to eliminate a 3-mile wide ``gap'' between the
proposed viticultural area and the Shenandoah Valley viticultural area.
Comment 2 further states that the boundary modification would be
justified because the soil characteristics and growing conditions of
the ``gap'' are similar to those within proposed viticultural area.
Comment 10 claims the proposed viticultural area is too
heterogeneous, and the hillier, mountainous areas within the proposed
boundary should be removed because they have a different topography
from the rest of the proposed viticultural area. Comment 15 also
suggests modifying the proposed boundary line to remove the slopes,
peaks, and ridges of the mountains within the proposed viticultural
area because these higher, steeper elevations are ``separately distinct
features from the rolling plains of Middleburg and its surrounding
countryside.''
One comment (comment 26) supports the establishment of the proposed
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area and also requests that the
boundary be adjusted to include the commenter's vineyard, which is
adjacent to the eastern portion of the proposed boundary that follows
State Route 662. Ms. Martin, the petitioner, in comment 28 confirmed
that the climate, topography, geology, and soil of the property in
question are consistent with the proposed viticultural area, and she
stated that she supports a modification of the boundary to include the
commenter's property.
Section 9.12(a)(2) of the TTB regulations requires petitions to
explain the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed
viticultural area and to describe the commonalities within the boundary
and explain how the region outside the proposed boundary differs. As
noted in Notice No. 123, the boundary evidence included in the petition
provided an adequate basis for the proposed boundary. Comments 2, 10,
and 15 recommend significant boundary modifications; however, the
commenters did not provide data and evidence to support their
assertions and rebut the evidence submitted with the petition. With
regard to comment 2, TTB notes that the terrain in the gap between the
proposed viticultural area and the established Shenandoah viticultural
area appears to be more mountainous and rugged than that of the
majority of the proposed viticultural area, with higher elevations and
steeper slopes that run in a north-south direction, compared to the
gentle, rolling hills within the proposed viticultural area.
With regard to the request in comment 26 to modify the eastern
portion of the proposed boundary that follows State Route 662 so that
the commenter's vineyard would be included within the viticultural
area, there are several factors that support this proposed boundary
change. First, the commenter's property is directly adjacent to the
boundary of the proposed viticultural area. TTB notes that the proposed
boundary was based in part on marked features on USGS maps that
approximately track the distinguishing feature of soil types; the
location and extent of a particular soil type can only be approximated
on the USGS maps used for boundary directions. Second, the petitioner
confirmed that the property shares the same distinguishing features as
the region within the proposed viticultural area. Finally, the boundary
modification adds only 330 acres (0.5 square miles). Accordingly, TTB
concludes that the boundary should be modified to include the
commenter's vineyard.
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition and the comments received in
response to Notice No. 123, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the
petitioner supports the establishment of the approximately 198-square
mile Middleburg Virginia viticultural area. Accordingly, under the
authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the
``Middleburg Virginia'' viticultural area in Loudoun and Fauquier
Counties, Virginia, effective 30 days from the publication date of this
document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary description of the viticultural area in
the regulatory text published at the end of this notice.
As discussed earlier in this document, the final boundary
description of the viticultural area differs from the description in
the proposed rule in order to incorporate the additional 330 acres.
Paragraphs (c)(8) through (12) have been changed to expand the southern
boundary slightly to include a vineyard that was adjacent to and
outside of the viticultural area boundary proposed in Notice No. 123;
subparagraphs (c)(9) through (c)(42) in the proposed rule were
redesignated as paragraphs (c)(13) through (c)(46) in this final rule
to accommodate the boundary modification.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and TTB lists them below
in the regulatory text. The Leesburg Quadrangle map was added to
accommodate the boundary modification described above.
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 the establishment of this viticultural area, its
name, ``Middleburg Virginia,'' is
[[Page 56548]]
recognized as a name of viticultural significance under 27 CFR
4.39(i)(3). The text of the regulation clarifies this point. Once this
final rule becomes effective, wine bottlers using ``Middleburg
Virginia'' 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 viticultural area's name as an
appellation of origin.
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 viticulturally significant term 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.
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 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
This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
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
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.225 to read as follows:
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
Sec. 9.225 Middleburg Virginia.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Middleburg Virginia''. For purposes of part 4 of this
chapter, ``Middleburg Virginia'' is a term of viticultural
significance.
(b) Approved maps. The 14 United States Geological Survey (scale
1:24,000) topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area are titled:
(1) Harpers Ferry Quadrangle, West Virginia-Virginia-Maryland,
1996;
(2) Point of Rocks Quadrangle, Maryland-Virginia, 1970,
photoinspected 1981;
(3) Waterford Quadrangle, Virginia-Maryland, 1970, photorevised
1984;
(4) Leesburg Quadrangle, Virginia-Maryland, 1994;
(5) Lincoln Quadrangle, Virginia-Loudoun Co., 1970, photoinspected
1981;
(6) Middleburg Quadrangle, Virginia, 1968, photorevised 1978,
photoinspected 1981;
(7) Rectortown Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photoinspected 1981;
(8) Marshall Quadrangle, Virginia-Fauquier Co., 1970, photorevised
1983;
(9) Orlean Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photorevised 1983;
(10) Upperville Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photorevised 1983;
(11) Linden Quadrangle, Virginia, 1994;
(12) Ashby Gap Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photorevised 1978,
photoinspected 1981;
(13) Bluemont Quadrangle, Virginia, 1970, photorevised 1979;
photoinspected 1981; and
(14) Purcellville Quadrangle, Virginia-Loudoun Co., 1970,
photorevised 1984.
(c) Boundary. The Middleburg Virginia viticultural area is located
in Loudoun and Fauquier Counties, Virginia. The boundary of the
Middleburg Virginia viticultural area is as described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the Harpers Ferry map at the
intersection of the easternmost boundary line of the Harpers Ferry
National Historical Park and the south bank of the Potomac River in
Loudoun County, Virginia. From the beginning point, follow the south
bank of the Potomac River easterly (downstream) for approximately 8.2
miles, crossing onto the Point of Rocks map, to the mouth of Catoctin
Creek; then
(2) Proceed southwesterly (upstream) along the meandering Catoctin
Creek for approximately 4 miles to State Route 663 (locally known as
Taylorstown Road) at Taylorstown; then
(3) Proceed easterly on State Route 663 for approximately 0.1 mile
to State Route 665 (locally known as Loyalty Road) in Taylorstown; then
(4) Proceed southerly on State Route 665 for approximately 5.4
miles, crossing onto the Waterford map, to State Route 662 on the south
side of Waterford; then
(5) Proceed southerly on State Route 662 for approximately 2.5
miles to State Route 9 (locally known as Charles Town Pike) near
Paeonian Springs; then
(6) Proceed southerly on State Route 9 (Charles Town Pike) for
approximately 0.7 mile, crossing over State Route 7 (locally known as
Harry Byrd Highway), to State Business Route 7 (locally known as E.
Colonial Highway); then
(7) Proceed westerly on State Business Route 7 (E. Colonial
Highway) for approximately 0.4 mile to the continuation of State Route
662 (locally known as Canby Road); then
(8) Proceed southerly on State Route 662 (Canby Road) for
approximately 0.75 miles to an unnamed, unimproved road near the marked
701-foot elevation; then
(9) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line for approximately 0.4
miles, crossing onto the Leesburg map, to the northern terminus of an
unnamed light-duty road known locally as Gore Lane; then
(10) Proceed southerly along Gore Lane for approximately 0.7 miles
to State Route 820; then
(11) Proceed southwesterly along State Route 820 for approximately
0.68 miles, crossing onto the Lincoln map, to State Route 622 (Canby
Road); then
(12) Proceed southwesterly on State Route 622 (Canby Road) for
approximately 2 miles to the intersection with State Route 729; then
(13) Proceed southwesterly on State Route 729 for approximately 2.8
miles to the State Route 729 bridge at North Fork Creek; then
[[Page 56549]]
(14) Proceed southeasterly (downstream) along the meandering North
Fork Creek for approximately 4 miles to the confluence of North Fork
Creek with Goose Creek; then
(15) Proceed southwesterly (upstream) along the meandering Goose
Creek for approximately 5.6 miles to State Route 734 at Carters Bridge;
then
(16) Proceed southeasterly on State Route 734 for approximately 2.4
miles, crossing onto the Middleburg map, to State Route 629; then
(17) Proceed southerly on State Route 629 for approximately 1 mile
to the road's intersection with U.S. Route 50 at Benchmark (BM) 341 at
Dover, then continue in a straight line due south for approximately 150
feet to the Little River; then
(18) Proceed southwesterly (upstream) along the meandering Little
River for approximately 8 miles to the State Route 626 bridge at
Halfway; then
(19) Proceed northwesterly on State Route 626 for approximately 0.3
mile to State Route 706, and then continue northwesterly on State Route
706 for approximately 1.6 miles, crossing onto the Rectortown map, to
Burnt Mill Run; then
(20) Proceed west-southwesterly (upstream) along Burnt Mill Run for
approximately 0.4 mile to State Route 705; then
(21) Proceed south-southwesterly on State Route 705 for
approximately 0.5 mile to State Route 715; then
(22) Proceed west-northwesterly on State Route 715 for
approximately 0.4 mile to State Route 709 at Zulla; then
(23) Proceed south-southwesterly on State Route 709 for
approximately 4.6 miles, crossing onto the Marshall map, to Interstate
Highway 66 (0.6 mile south of Brookes Corner); then
(24) Proceed west-northwesterly on Interstate Highway 66 for
approximately 4.0 miles, crossing onto the Orlean map, to State Route
732 (locally known as Ramey Road); then
(25) Proceed westerly on State Route 732 approximately 2 miles to
State Route 731 (locally known as Ashville Road) near Ashville; then
(26) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line, crossing onto the
Upperville map, to the marked 1,304-foot peak on Little Cobbler
Mountain, then northerly in a straight line to the marked 1,117-foot
peak on Little Cobbler Mountain, and then continue northerly in a
straight line to the marked 771-foot peak near the northern end of
Little Cobbler Mountain; then
(27) Proceed west in a straight line for approximately 2.7 miles to
the 595-foot elevation point on State Route 724, southeast of Markham,
and continue west in a straight line for approximately 3.1 miles,
crossing onto the Linden map, to State Route 726 and an unnamed side
road (near a cemetery), approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the
intersection of State Route 726 and State Route 55 (near Belle Meade);
then
(28) Proceed northeasterly along State Route 726 for approximately
0.7 mile to State Route 55; then
(29) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line for approximately
1.7 miles to State Route 688 at BM 629 in Wildcat Hollow; then
(30) Proceed northerly and then northeasterly on State Route 688
for approximately 5.5 miles, crossing over and back between the Linden
and Upperville maps and then continuing on the Upperville map, to U.S.
Route 17; then
(31) Proceed northerly on U.S. Route 17 for approximately 2.0
miles, crossing onto the Ashby Gap map, to U.S. Route 50 (just east of
Paris); then
(32) Proceed east-northeasterly in a straight line for
approximately 1.5 miles to the marked 797-foot elevation point located
along State Route 618 at a fork in the road approximately 0.65 miles
north of U.S. Route 50; then
(33) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line for approximately 0.9
mile to U.S. Route 50 at BM 625, which is located at a bridge over an
unnamed branch of Panther Skin Creek; then
(34) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line for
approximately 2.9 miles, crossing onto the Upperville map, to the
intersection of State Routes 712 and 710 at Kerfoot; then
(35) Proceed southeasterly on State Route 710 for approximately 2.5
miles, crossing onto the Rectortown map, to the State Route 710 bridge
over Goose Creek; then
(36) Proceed northeasterly (downstream) along the meandering Goose
Creek for approximately 10.9 miles to State Route 626 at Bentons
Bridge; then
(37) Proceed northwesterly on State Route 626 for approximately 4.0
miles, crossing onto the Bluemont map, to State Route 630 at Unison;
then
(38) Proceed northeasterly on State Route 630 for approximately
0.75 mile to Dog Branch; then
(39) Proceed northwesterly along Dog Branch for approximately 1.75
miles to State Route 719; then
(40) Proceed north-northeasterly on State Route 719 for
approximately 2 miles to State Route 734 at Airmont; then
(41) Proceed east-southeasterly on State Route 734 for
approximately 0.7 mile to State Route 735; then
(42) Proceed northeasterly on State Route 735 for approximately 2
miles to State Route 725; then
(43) Proceed north-northeasterly in a straight line for
approximately 4.4 miles, crossing over the northwest corner of the
Lincoln map and then onto the Purcellville map, to the intersection of
State Routes 711 and 690, (northwest of Purcellville); then
(44) Proceed north-northeasterly on State Route 690 for
approximately 3.1 miles to State Route 9, then proceed east on State
Route 9 for approximately 0.2 mile to the continuation of State Route
690, then proceed northerly on State Route 690 for approximately 5.3
miles, crossing onto the Harpers Ferry map, to the road's intersection
with the 600-foot elevation line immediately south of the road's marked
592-foot elevation point (located 0.75 mile east-northeast of the radio
facilities at the 1,424-foot peak of Short Hill Mountain); then
(45) Proceed northerly along the 600-foot elevation line for
approximately 4 miles to the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
south boundary line; then
(46) Proceed east and north approximately 0.75 mile along the
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park boundary line, returning to the
beginning point.
Signed: July 9, 2012.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: July 18, 2012.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2012-22596 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P