83 FR 62750 - Proposed Establishment of the West Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 234 (December 6, 2018)
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 234 (December 6, 2018)
| Page Range | 62750-62757 | |
| FR Document | 2018-26321 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 62750-62757] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-26321] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB-2018-0008; Notice No. 177] RIN 1513-AC40 Proposed Establishment of the West Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the 141,846-acre ``West Sonoma Coast'' viticultural area in Sonoma County, California. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely within the established Sonoma Coast and North Coast viticultural areas and contains the established Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of [[Page 62751]] their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its regulations. DATES: Comments must be received by January 7, 2019. ADDRESSES: Please send your comments on this notice to one of the following addresses:Internet: https://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2018-0008 at ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal); U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 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, dated December 7, 2013, (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions. 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 of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape- growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following: Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition; An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA; A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA; 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. West Sonoma Coast Petition TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram, on behalf of the West Sonoma Coast Vintners, proposing the establishment of the ``West Sonoma Coast'' AVA. The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is located within Sonoma County, California. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the established Sonoma Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.116) and North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30) and entirely overlaps the smaller established Fort Ross-Seaview AVA (27 CFR 9.221). The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA contains 141,846 acres, with approximately 47 commercially-producing vineyards covering approximately 1,028 acres distributed throughout the proposed AVA. Grape varieties planted within the proposed AVA include Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA include its topography, geology, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and its supporting exhibits. Name Evidence The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is located within the western portion of Sonoma County. The petition states that Sonoma County is typically referred to in terms of ``east'' and ``west,'' and that terms such as ``West County,'' ``West Sonoma,'' and ``Western Sonoma'' are frequently used to describe the region that includes the proposed AVA. For example, the school district that serves the proposed AVA is the West Sonoma County Union High School District.\1\ A newspaper that serves the town of Sebastopol and points west, including the region of the proposed AVA, is called the Sonoma West Times & News.\2\ Additionally, in his book about wineries and vineyards along the Russian River, Steve Heimoff refers to residents of the area as ``West Sonomans.'' \3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ West Sonoma County Union High School District (May 7, 2018), http://wscuhsd.k12.ca.us/. \2\ Sonoma West Times & News (May 16, 2018), http://www.sonomawest.com/. \3\ Heimoff, Steve. A Wine Journey Along the Russian River (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petition states that although the terms ``West Sonoma'' and ``Western Sonoma'' apply to the region of the [[Page 62752]] proposed AVA, both terms encompass a broader area than just the extreme coastal region covered by the proposed AVA. Therefore, the petition states that ``West Sonoma Coast'' is a more accurate and precise name for the proposed AVA, as this name conveys the idea that the proposed AVA is located both within the coastal region of the area known as West Sonoma and also within the western portion of the larger established Sonoma Coast AVA. The petition included several examples of the use of ``West Sonoma Coast'' to refer to the region of the proposed AVA. For example, a 2013 Wall Street Journal article notes, ``It's only in the last 20 years or so that the West Sonoma Coast has been recognized as a superb region for Burgundian varietals of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay.'' \4\ A 2014 article in Forbes is titled ``California's Edgiest Wine Region: Western Sonoma Coast.'' \5\ A 2015 article for Wine and Spirits refers to ``the region unofficially known as `west [sic] Sonoma Coast'.'' \6\ Finally, the petition included a real estate listing for ``West Sonoma Coast ranch land'' for sale in the town of Annapolis, California, which is within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ McInerney, Jay. ``West Sonoma Coast Wines Are on the Rise,'' The Wall Street Journal (July 18, 2013). \5\ Bell, Katie Kelly. ``California's Edgiest Wine Region: Western Sonoma Coast,'' Forbes (March 6, 2014). \6\ Brown, Elaine Chukan. ``Sonoma's Far Coast: A haven for pinot noir,'' Wines and Spirits (August 31, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boundary Evidence The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA encompasses the mountainous terrain along the Pacific coastline of Sonoma County. The Pacific Ocean forms the western boundary of the proposed AVA, and the shared Sonoma- Mendocino County line forms the northern boundary. The petition notes that the proposed AVA does not extend farther north because use of the term ``Sonoma'' does not extend into Mendocino County. The eastern boundary follows a series of elevation contours, creeks, and U.S.G.S. map section lines to separate the proposed AVA from the more inland region of Sonoma County that has lower elevations and warmer climates. The region east of the proposed AVA includes the established Russian River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.66) and Northern Sonoma AVA (27 CFR 9.70), both of which have boundaries that are concurrent with portions of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA's eastern boundary. The southern boundary of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is shared with the northern boundary of the Petaluma Gap AVA (27 CFR 9.261), which has generally lower elevations. Distinguishing Features The distinguishing features of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA are its topography, geology, and climate. The petition included detailed information and supporting evidence regarding the distinguishing features of only the regions to the east and south of the proposed AVA. The Pacific Ocean is to the west of the proposed AVA and cannot be used for viticultural purposes. The petition did include a broad summary of the characteristics of the region to the north of the proposed AVA. TTB is not including the information in this document because the petition did not provide evidence to support the claims. However, TTB does not consider information from that region to be necessary because the term ``Sonoma'' is not used to describe the region to the north of the proposed AVA, within Mendocino County. Therefore, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA could not extend farther north even if the distinguishing features of both regions were similar because TTB regulations require the proposed AVA name to apply to the entire proposed AVA. See 27 CFR 9.12(a)(1). Topography The petition states that the terrain of the proposed West Sonoma Coast is characterized by the steep, rugged mountains and ridgelines that form the Coastal Ranges, which run parallel to the coastline. Very little area within the proposed AVA contains slopes of less than 5 percent, and the summits of the coastal mountains can exceed 1,000 feet. In the coastal regions of California, elevations below 900 feet are below the fog line and are typically exposed to heavy marine fog, which can lower temperatures and impede photosynthesis. However, the petition states that within the proposed AVA, the ridgelines of the Coastal Ranges form protected areas below the fog line where the heavy marine fog does not reach and successful viticulture can occur. The petition states that examples of such protected regions within the proposed AVA include the areas around Freestone, Annapolis, and Occidental. The high elevations within the proposed AVA also allow for vineyards to be placed above the fog. The petition states that the established Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, in particular, benefits from elevations above the fog line. According to the petition, commercial viticulture would likely not occur within the proposed AVA without protection from the extreme marine influences, either in the form of elevations above the fog line or lower elevations sheltered by the ridgelines, because the cold temperatures and reduced sunlight caused by heavy marine fog would not allow grapes to ripen reliably. By contrast, the region immediately to the east of the proposed AVA, within the established Russian River Valley AVA, lacks summits that exceed 1,000 feet. Additionally, the Russian River Valley AVA is dominated by large areas with gentler slopes, including the Santa Rosa Plain and the Green Valley that forms the established Green Valley of the Russian River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.57). The Petaluma Gap AVA, to the south of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, also has lower elevations and gentler slopes. Geology Much of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is characterized by sedimentary rock of the Franciscan Complex, including Franciscan sandstone. Other major geological formations within the proposed AVA include the German Rancho Formation and the Gualala Formation, both of which also contain sedimentary rock. To the south of the proposed AVA, the region is dominated by the Wilson Grove Formation, which is comprised of claystone, siltstone, and fine sandstone overlaying Franciscan Formation sedimentary rock. Northeast of the proposed AVA, the Franciscan Formation is prevalent, but to the southeast, the Wilson Grove Formation is more common. Farther east, the Santa Rosa Plain is characterized by Quaternary alluvium and fluvial deposits, which are uncommon within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. The petition states that the underlying geology of a region contributes to the topography. Because the Wilson Grove Formation and alluvial deposits are more easily eroded than the geological formations of the proposed AVA, the topography to the south and east of the proposed AVA is characterized by lower elevations, rounded hills, and gentle slopes with generally deep soils. By contrast, the proposed AVA has high elevations and steep, rugged slopes with thin soils that have a high sand content. The petition states that both the thin soils and high sand content promote good drainage in vineyards, which is important to disease prevention. Climate Temperature: The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA boundary begins at the Pacific coast and extends inland [[Page 62753]] only a few miles. As a result, the climate of the proposed AVA is strongly influenced by the cold marine air and heavy marine fog. The petition states that much of the proposed AVA is located within the ``Marine'' climate zone, a category within a climate scale created by former University of California Extension farm advisors Robert Sisson and Paul Vossen during their work in Sonoma County.\7\ Sisson believed that the Marine zone was too cold for successful viticulture. However, the petition states that Sisson's climate scale did not take into account the role the coastal mountains play in creating areas below the fog line that are protected from the heaviest marine influences, the ridgelines that are above the fog line in the proposed AVA, or the advances in viticultural practices that have been made since the scale was created. The petition notes that the areas within the proposed AVA around Annapolis, Seaview, Occidental, and Freestone are examples of such protected locations within the Marine zone where successful commercial viticulture takes place. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986 (This publication notes the findings of University of California Extension Farm Advisors Robert Sisson and Paul Vossen regarding the climate zones of Sonoma County, California.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petition states that although the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA contains ridgelines above the fog line as well as areas at lower elevations that are sheltered from the heaviest marine fog and air, the marine influence is still strong enough to affect the climate within the proposed AVA. The petition included growing degree day (GDD) accumulations for a location in Occidental, which is within the proposed AVA, and a location in Windsor, which is within the established Russian River Valley AVA and also within the eastern portion of the established Sonoma Coast AVA. The data shows that the location within the proposed AVA accumulates fewer GDDs than the location to the east of the proposed AVA. Table 1--Growing Degree Day Accumulations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Winkler method \8\ Daily method \9\ Location ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 \10\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Windsor......................................... 1,860 2,271 2,466 2,628 1,918 2,331 2,513 2,685 Occidental...................................... 1,761 2,024 2,070 2,358 1,872 1,991 2,045 2,411 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The lower GDD accumulations reflect the lower daytime temperatures within the proposed AVA. The petition included a graph showing the average monthly maximum temperatures during the growing seasons from 2010 to 2014 for locations in Occidental, which is within the proposed AVA, and within Windsor and Santa Rosa, which are east of the proposed AVA and also within the Sonoma Coast AVA and the Russian River Valley AVA. The graph shows that temperatures were highest in Windsor, ranging from approximately 79 degrees F to approximately 108 degrees F. In Santa Rosa, the temperature range was almost identical to the range for Windsor. By contrast, maximum temperatures in Occidental did not exceed 100 degrees F and ranged from approximately 71 degrees F to approximately 98 degrees F. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ A.J. Winkler et al., General Viticulture 60-71 (2nd. Ed. 1974). The Winkler method of calculating GDDs utilizes the monthly average temperature above 50 degrees Fahrenheit (the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth) multiplied by the number of days in the month during the growing season (April 1 through October 31). \9\ This method of calculating GDDs utilizes the sum of daily average temperatures above 50 degrees F during the growing season. See Washington State University, Growing Degree Days (July 23, 2018), http://wine.wsu.edu/extension/weather/growing-degree-days/. \10\ Data is incomplete for a 17-day period in September and October 2014 at the Occidental station. Daily GDD accumulations during these days are based on an average of temperatures two weeks prior and two weeks following this period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petition states that, in spite of the heavy marine influence, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA generally has warmer nocturnal temperatures than the regions to the east. According to the petition, cool air drains off of the mountains of the proposed AVA at night and settles in the lower elevations to the east, resulting in cooler nighttime temperatures to the east. The petition included a graph showing the monthly low temperatures from 2012 to 2014 for locations in Occidental, Windsor, and Santa Rosa. The graph shows that monthly low temperatures within Occidental, in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, range from approximately 37 degrees F to approximately 47 degrees F. By contrast, at the Windsor station to the east of the proposed AVA, temperatures range from approximately 31 degrees F to approximately 43 degrees F. At the Santa Rosa station, also to the east of the proposed AVA and at lower elevations than both the Occidental and Windsor stations, temperatures range from approximately 28 degrees F to approximately 44 degrees F. The petition states that, when compared to the region to the east, the proposed AVA has more nights with temperatures that are warm enough to allow the grapes to continue maturing. Additionally, because nighttime temperatures seldom drop low enough to cause significant damage to the vines, the petition states that frost protection measures within the proposed AVA are ``nearly non-existent,'' whereas frost protection methods are more frequently used in the lower inland areas to the east of the proposed AVA. Wind Speed: Finally, the petition included data on wind speed averages from 2010 to 2013 within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, the region to the east, and Valley Ford, which is to the south of the proposed AVA within the Petaluma Gap AVA. The petition states that wind speeds are higher within the region to the south of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA due to the lower elevations and more open terrain that does not block the wind. Furthermore, wind speeds are higher to the east of the proposed AVA because winds can enter that region from the San Pablo Bay, to the south of the proposed AVA, and blow relatively unhindered up the broad Santa Rosa Plain. The petition states that high wind speeds, such as those found in the regions to the east and south of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, can slow photosynthesis rates in grapevines and, therefore, can also slow fruit development and maturation. [[Page 62754]] Table 2--Wind Speed ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average wind speed (miles per hour) Location (direction from proposed AVA) --------------------------------------------------------------- 2010 2011 2012 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Valley Ford (south)............................. 8.0 7.4 7.6 8.5 Windsor (east).................................. 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.9 Santa Rosa (east)............................... 3.9 4.0 4.1 N/A Occidental (within)............................. 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of Distinguishing Features In summary, the topography, geology, and climate of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The proposed AVA has steeper slopes and reaches higher maximum elevations than the regions to the south and east. The proposed AVA also has lower wind speeds than the regions to the south and east. Additionally, in contrast to the region to the east, the proposed AVA has geological features that lack large amounts of alluvium, lower GDD accumulations, cooler daytime temperatures and warmer nighttime temperatures, and lower wind speeds. To the west of the proposed AVA is the Pacific Ocean. The petition did not provide comparison data for the region to the north of the proposed AVA, in Mendocino County, because the term ``Sonoma Coast'' is not used to describe regions outside of Sonoma County; therefore, per TTB regulations, the region to the north could not be included in an AVA called ``West Sonoma Coast.'' Comparison of the Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing Sonoma Coast AVA Sonoma Coast AVA T.D. ATF-253, which published in the Federal Register on June 11, 1987 (52 FR 22304), established the Sonoma Coast AVA in Sonoma County, California. The primary feature of the Sonoma Coast AVA, as described in T.D. ATF-253, is a marine-influenced climate that is cooler than the region of Sonoma County east of the Russian River Valley AVA. The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA shares this characteristic with the larger Sonoma Coast AVA. Therefore, TTB believes that the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA appears to share enough similarities to remain within the established Sonoma Coast AVA. However, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA does have some characteristics that distinguish it from the Sonoma Coast AVA, which TTB believes would warrant its establishment as a new AVA. For example, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is largely within the ``Marine'' climate zone, which results in lower GDD accumulations than are found within the eastern portion of the Sonoma Coast AVA, which is in the ``Coastal Cool'' climate zone.\11\ Additionally, the proposed AVA is in a mountainous region with steeper slopes and more rugged terrain than the majority of the Sonoma Coast AVA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986 (This publication notes the findings of University of California Extension Farm Advisors Robert Sisson and Paul Vossen regarding the climate zones of Sonoma County, California.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparison of the Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing North Coast AVA The North Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-145, published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 42973). It includes all or portions of Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, Marin, and Solano Counties, California. In the conclusion of the ``Geographical Features'' section of the preamble, T.D. ATF-145 states that ``[d]ue to the enormous size of the North Coast, variations exist in climatic features such as temperature, rainfall, and fog intrusion.'' The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA shares the basic viticultural feature of the North Coast AVA--the marine influence that moderates growing season temperatures in the area. However, the proposed AVA is much more uniform in its climatic features, namely temperature, soils, and topography than the diverse, multicounty North Coast AVA. In this regard, TTB notes that T.D. ATF-145 specifically states that ``approval of this viticultural area does not preclude approval of additional areas, either wholly contained with the North Coast, or partially overlapping the North Coast,'' and that ``smaller viticultural areas tend to be more uniform in their geographical and climatic characteristics, while very large areas such as the North Coast tend to exhibit generally similar characteristics, in this case the influence of maritime air off of the Pacific Ocean and San Pablo Bay.'' Thus, the proposal to establish the West Sonoma Coast AVA is not inconsistent with what was envisioned when the North Coast AVA was established. Comparison of the Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing Fort Ross-Seaview AVA The Fort Ross-Seaview AVA was established by T.D. TTB-98, published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2011 (76 FR 77684). The Fort Ross-Seaview AVA is located within both the Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs and would be located entirely within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, if that AVA is established. T.D. TTB-98 describes the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA as an area of coastal ridges, mountains, and hills of elevations generally above 920 feet. T.D. TTB-98 states that these higher elevations are typically above the fog line, allowing the AVA to receive more sunlight and warmer temperatures than the lower elevations. Additional information provided by the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA petitioner shows that there are approximately 12 vineyards within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, and they are all planted at elevations above the fog line. The Fort Ross-Seaview AVA shares the mountainous topography and marine-influenced climate of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. However, although there are elevations within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA that are above the fog line, similar to those within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, the proposed AVA also includes areas at elevations below the fog line. Some of these lower elevations are sheltered from the heaviest marine fog and, therefore, can support viticulture. Additional information provided by the petitioner shows that there are approximately 15 vineyards within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and outside of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, 9 of which are planted at elevations at or below the fog line. Therefore, TTB believes that although the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA shares the general topographic and climatic characteristics of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, the proposed AVA has a broader range of elevations where viticulture [[Page 62755]] takes place that distinguish it from the established AVA and would warrant its establishment as a new AVA. TTB Determination TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 141,846-acre West Sonoma Coast AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Boundary Description See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the proposed regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with 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 Sec. 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (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 Sec. 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details. If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``West Sonoma Coast,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under Sec. 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name ``West Sonoma Coast'' in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule. TTB is not proposing ``Sonoma Coast,'' standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance with regards to the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA because the term already has viticultural significance pursuant to 27 CFR 9.116 as the name of an established AVA. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this document specifies only the full name ``West Sonoma Coast'' as a term of viticultural significance for the proposed AVA for the purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations. The approval of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA would not affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using ``Sonoma Coast,'' ``Fort Ross- Seaview,'' or ``North Coast'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within the Sonoma Coast, Fort Ross-Seaview, or North Coast AVAs would not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA would allow vintners to use ``West Sonoma Coast,'' ``Sonoma Coast,'' and ``North Coast'' as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. Additionally, vintners would be allowed to use ``West Sonoma Coast,'' as well as ``North Coast,'' ``Sonoma Coast,'' and ``Fort Ross- Seaview,'' as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. Public Participation Comments Invited TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA's location within the existing Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing established AVAs. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVA that the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA should no longer be part of that AVA. Finally, TTB is interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the established Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, which is located within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, that the established AVA should not be part of the proposed AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments. Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA on wine labels that include the term ``West Sonoma Coast'' as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA. Submitting Comments You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the following three methods: Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2018- 0008 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 177 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab. U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005. Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 177 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals. [[Page 62756]] In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the ``Organization'' blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Public Disclosure TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2018-0008 on the Federal e- rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 177. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use Regulations.gov, click on the site's ``Help'' tab. All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting. You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Public Reading Room, 1310 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly- sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Public Reading Room at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2135 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials. Regulatory Flexibility Act TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required. Drafting Information Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend 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. Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas 0 2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.__ to read as follows: Sec. 9.__ West Sonoma Coast. (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is ``West Sonoma Coast''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, ``West Sonoma Coast'' is a term of viticultural significance. (b) Approved maps. The 14 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the West Sonoma Coast viticultural area are titled: (1) McGuire Ridge, California, 1991 (provisional edition); (2) Stewarts Point, California, 1978; (3) Annapolis, California, 1977; (4) Tombs Creek, California, 1978; (5) Fort Ross, California, 1998; (6) Cazadero, California, 1998; (7) Duncans Mills, California, 1979; (8) Camp Meeker, California, 1995; (9) Valley Ford, California, 1954; photorevised 1971; (10) Two Rock, California, 1954; photorevised 1971; (11) Bodega Head, California, 1972; (12) Arched Rock, California, 1977; (13) Plantation, California, 1977; and (14) Gualala, California, 1998. (c) Boundary. The West Sonoma Coast viticultural area is located in Sonoma County, California. The boundary of the West Sonoma Coast viticultural area is as described below: (1) The beginning point is on the McGuire Ridge map at the intersection of the Sonoma County/Mendocino County boundary and the northwest corner of section 29, T11N/R14W. From the beginning point, proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.4 mile to an unnamed hilltop with a marked elevation of 820 feet in section 29, T11N/R14W; then (2) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 1.4 miles to the intersection of the eastern boundary of section 32 and the 800-foot elevation contour, T11/R14W; then (3) Proceed southeast along the 800-foot elevation contour for 3.1 miles, crossing onto the Stewarts Point map, to its intersection with the northern boundary of section 3, T10N/R14W; then (4) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 3 and then along the northern boundary of section 2 for a total of 0.8 mile to the intersection of the northern boundary of section 2 and the 600-foot elevation contour, T10N, R14W; then (5) Proceed generally southeast along the 600-foot elevation contour for 3.3 miles, crossing onto the Annapolis map, to its intersection with the northern boundary of section 12, T10N/R14W; then (6) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 12, T10N/ R14W, for 0.1 mile to its intersection with the 600-foot elevation contour; then (7) Proceed north then generally east along the meandering 600-foot elevation contour for 4.8 miles to its sixth intersection with the northern boundary of section 7, T10N/R13W; then (8) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.2 mile to the intersection of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Kelly Road and an unnamed, unimproved road with a marked elevation of 725 feet, known locally as Oak Hill LO Road, in section 8, T10N/R13W; then [[Page 62757]] (9) Proceed south in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the intersection of Soda Springs Road and the eastern boundary of section 7, T10N/R13W; then (10) Proceed in a straight line southeast for 1.6 miles to the intersection of the eastern boundary of section 17, T10N/R13W, and the 800-foot elevation contour; then (11) Proceed southeast along the 800-foot elevation contour for 2.6 miles to its intersection with an unnamed, unimproved road near the 862-foot benchmark in section 21, T10N/R13W; then (12) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.2 mile to the intersection of the 600-foot elevation contour and an intermittent stream in section 28, T10N/R13W; then (13) Proceed south along the 600-foot elevation contour for 1.7 miles to its intersection with the eastern boundary of section 33, T10N/R13W; then (14) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the intersection of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Skaggs Springs Road and an unnamed, unimproved road known locally as Skyline Road, near the Mendosoma Fire Station in section 34, T10N/R13W; then (15) Proceed southeast along the unnamed, unimproved road (Skyline Road) for total of 5.9 miles as it follows Skyline Ridge and crosses onto the Tombs Creek map, back onto the Annapolis map, then back on to the Tombs Creek map, to the intersection of the road with the 1,200- foot elevation contour in section 13, T9N/R13W; then (16) Proceed southeast along the 1,200-foot elevation contour for 0.6 mile to the intersection with Allen Creek in section 18, T9N/R12W; then (17) Proceed north along Allen Creek for 0.2 mile to the intersection with the 920-foot elevation contour in section 18, T9N/ R12W; then (18) Proceed east and then southeast along the meandering 920-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Fort Ross map, then onto the Tombs Creek map, and then back onto the Fort Ross map, to the intersection of the elevation contour with Jim Creek in section 21, T9N/R12W; then (19) Proceed southeast along Jim Creek for 0.7 mile to the intersection of the creek with the northern boundary of section 27, T9N, R12W, then (20) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 27 for 0.5 mile to the northeast corner of section 27; then (21) Proceed south along the eastern boundaries of sections 27, 34, 3, 7, 15, and 22 for 5.1 miles to the intersection of the eastern boundary of section 22 and Fort Ross Road, T8N/R12W; then (22) Proceed east along Fort Ross Road for approximately 262 feet to the intersection of the road with the middle branch of Russian Gulch Creek in section 23, T8N/R12W; then (23) Proceed south along the middle branch of Russian Gulch Creek for 1.2 miles to the intersection with the 920-foot elevation contour in section 26, T8N/R12W; then (24) Proceed southeast in a straight line east for 2 miles, crossing onto the Cazadero map, to the summit of Pole Mountain in section 30, T8N/R11W; then (25) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 4.7 miles, crossing onto the Duncans Mills map, to the confluence of Austin Creek and the Russian River, T7N/R11W; then (26) Proceed generally east (upstream) along the Russian River for 3.1 miles to the intersection of the Russian River and the Bohemian Highway in section 7, T7N/R10W; then (27) Proceed southeast along the Bohemian Highway for a total of 10.1 miles, crossing onto the Camp Meeker map and through the towns of Camp Meeker and Occidental, then crossing onto the Valley Ford map and through the town of Freestone, to the intersection of the Bohemian Highway and an unnamed medium-duty road known locally as Bodega Road near benchmark (BM) 214 in section 12, T6N/R10W; then (28) Proceed northeast along Bodega Road for 0.9 mile, crossing onto the Camp Meeker map, to the intersection of the road with an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Barnett Valley Road north of the marked 486-foot elevation point in the Ca[ntilde]ada de Jonive land grant, T6N/R10W; then (29) Proceed south then east along Barnett Valley Road for 2.2 miles, crossing onto the Valley Ford map and then onto the Two Rock map, to the intersection of Bennett Valley Road with Burnside Road in section 17, T6N/R9W; then (30) Proceed southeast along Burnside Road for 3.2 miles to its intersection with the 400-foot elevation contour just north of an unnamed light duty road known locally as Bloomfield Road in the Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T5N/R9W; then (31) Proceed west along the 400-foot elevation contour for 6.7 miles, crossing onto the Valley Ford map, to the intersection of the elevation contour with an unimproved road, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R9W; then (32) Proceed northwest then southwest along the unnamed, unimproved road for 0.9 mile to its terminus, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R9W; then (33) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 0.1 mile to the marked 448-foot summit of an unnamed hilltop, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then (34) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the 61- foot benchmark along an unnamed secondary highway known locally as Freestone Valley Ford Road, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/ R10W; then (35) Proceed west-northwest in a straight line for 0.8 mile to VABM 724 in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then (36) Proceed west in a straight line for 1.0 mile to the intersection of Salmon Creek and an intermittent stream, Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then (37) Proceed west (downstream) along Salmon Creek for 9.6 miles, crossing onto the Bodega Head map, to the mouth of the creek at the Pacific Ocean; then (38) Proceed north along the Pacific coastline for 51.4 miles, crossing over the Duncan Mills, Arched Rock, Fort Ross, Plantation, and Stewarts Point maps and onto the Gualala map to the intersection of the coastline with the Sonoma County/Mendocino County line; then (39) Proceed east along the Sonoma County/Mendocino County line for 5.6 miles, crossing onto the McGuire Ridge map, and returning to the beginning point, T11N, R14W. Signed: July 27, 2018. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: November 13, 2018. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). Editorial note: This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on November 29, 2018. [FR Doc. 2018-26321 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
![62750 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to (7) Proceed northwest along Mountain (21) Proceed northeast along Locust
determine the boundary of the Crest of Valley Road/County Road 1109/Cabin Grove Road approximately 1.4 miles to
the Blue Ridge Henderson County Creek Road approximately 1.3 miles, its intersection with an unnamed trail
viticultural area are titled: crossing back onto the Standingstone near Locust Grove Church; then
(1) Black Mountain, North Carolina, Mountain map, to its intersection with (22) Proceed northeast in a straight
1941; photorevised 1978; Pinnacle Mountain Road; then line approximately 0.7 mile to the
(2) Bat Cave, North Carolina, 1997; (8) Proceed northwest in a straight 3,442-foot elevation marker atop Rich
(3) Cliffield Mountain, North line approximately 1.0 mile to the Mountain; then
Carolina, 1946; photorevised 1991; intersection of Little Cove Creek with (23) Proceed northwest in a straight
(4) Saluda, North Carolina–South the 2,800-foor elevation contour; then line approximately 0.4 mile to the
Carolina, 1983 (provisional edition); (9) Proceed westerly along the 2,800- intersection of Southern Leveston Road
(5) Zirconia, North Carolina–South foot elevation contour approximately with an unnamed jeep trail; then
Carolina, 1997; 2.4 miles to its intersection with an (24) Proceed northwest along
(6) Standingstone Mountain, South unnamed creek on the north slope of Southern Leveston Road approximately
Carolina–North Carolina, 1997; Stone Mountain that flows north into 2.4 miles to its intersection with
(7) Horse Shoe, North Carolina, 1997; Jeffers Lake; then Hoopers Creek Road; then
(8) Hendersonville, North Carolina, (25) Proceed northeast in a straight
(10) Proceed southwest in a straight
1997; and line approximately 0.7 mile to the
line approximately 2.0 miles to the
(9) Fruitland, North Carolina, 1997. 2,983-foot elevation marker labeled
(c) Boundary. The Crest of the Blue intersection of the shared Henderson–
Transylvania county line with the Edneyville-5 atop a peak on Burney
Ridge Henderson County viticultural Mountain along the shared Henderson–
area is located in Henderson County, Dupont State Forest boundary atop
Hickory Mountain; then Buncombe county line; then
North Carolina. The boundary of the (26) Proceed northeast along the
Crest of the Blue Ridge Henderson (11) Proceed northeast along the
Henderson–Transylvania county line Henderson–Buncombe county line
County viticultural area is as described approximately 8.2 miles, crossing onto
below: approximately 2.6 miles, crossing onto
the Horse Shoe map, to its intersection the Black Mountain map, and return to
(1) The beginning point is on the the beginning point atop Little Pisgah
Black Mountain map at the 4,412-foot with an unnamed road, known locally
as Clipper Lane, on the hilltop above the Mountain.
elevation marker atop Little Pisgah
Mountain, along the shared Buncombe– Sentell Cemetery; then Signed: September 19, 2018.
Henderson county line. From the (12) Proceed northeast in a straight John J. Manfreda,
beginning point, proceed southeast line approximately 1.6 miles to the Administrator.
along the shared Buncombe–Henderson center of the highest closing contour Approved: November 13, 2018.
county line approximately 4.4 miles, atop Jeter Mountain; then Timothy E. Skud,
crossing onto the Bat Cave map, to the (13) Proceed southeast in a straight Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Tax, Trade, and
intersection of the Buncombe– line approximately 1.3 miles to the Tariff Policy).
Henderson county line with the shared center of the highest closing contour [FR Doc. 2018–26323 Filed 12–4–18; 8:45 am]
Henderson–Rutherford county line; then atop Evans mountain; then
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
(2) Proceed southerly along the shared (14) Proceed northeast in a straight
Henderson–Rutherford county line line approximately 2.0 miles to the
approximately 5.1 miles to its center of the highest closing contour DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
intersection with the Polk county line; atop Wolf Mountain; then
then (15) Proceed northeast in a straight Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
(3) Proceed southwest along the line approximately 1.2 miles to the Bureau
shared Henderson–Polk county line center of the highest closing contour
approximately 14.9 miles, crossing over atop Drake Mountain; then 27 CFR Part 9
the Cliffield Mountain map and onto the (16) Proceed northwest in a straight
[Docket No. TTB–2018–0008; Notice No.
Saluda map, to its intersection with the line approximately 0.7 mile to the 177]
North Carolina–South Carolina border; center of the highest closing contour
then atop Cantrell Mountain; then RIN 1513–AC40
(4) Proceed westerly along the North (17) Proceed northeast in a straight
line approximately 3.3 miles to the Proposed Establishment of the West
Carolina–South Carolina border
2,618-foot elevation marker on the Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area
approximately 8.1 miles, crossing onto
the Zirconia map, to the 3,058-foot northeast slope of Long John Mountain; AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
elevation marker atop Big Top then Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Mountain; then (18) Proceed northeast in a straight ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
(5) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 1.4 miles, crossing
line approximately 2.0 miles, crossing onto the Hendersonville map, to the SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
onto the Standingstone Mountain map, center of the highest closing contour and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
to the center of the highest closing atop Stoney Mountain; then establish the 141,846-acre ‘‘West
contour atop Maybin Mountain; then (19) Proceed northeast in a straight Sonoma Coast’’ viticultural area in
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
(6) Proceed northeast in a straight line line approximately 0.6 mile to the Sonoma County, California. The
approximately 2.2 miles, crossing back intersection of Brookside Camp Road proposed viticultural area lies entirely
onto the Zirconia map, to the with Dixie Highway; then within the established Sonoma Coast
intersection of an unnamed road, known (20) Proceed northeast along and North Coast viticultural areas and
locally as County Road 1113/Maybin Brookside Camp Road approximately contains the established Fort Ross–
Road, with Mountain Valley Road, also 2.1 miles, crossing onto the Fruitland Seaview viticultural area. TTB
known as County Road 1109/Cabin map, to its intersection with Locust designates viticultural areas to allow
Creek Road; then Grove Road; then vintners to better describe the origin of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM 06DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62984/page/1.svg)
![62752 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
proposed AVA, both terms encompass a Coast AVA is shared with the northern proposed AVA without protection from
broader area than just the extreme boundary of the Petaluma Gap AVA (27 the extreme marine influences, either in
coastal region covered by the proposed CFR 9.261), which has generally lower the form of elevations above the fog line
AVA. Therefore, the petition states that elevations. or lower elevations sheltered by the
‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ is a more ridgelines, because the cold
Distinguishing Features
accurate and precise name for the temperatures and reduced sunlight
proposed AVA, as this name conveys The distinguishing features of the caused by heavy marine fog would not
the idea that the proposed AVA is proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA are allow grapes to ripen reliably.
located both within the coastal region of its topography, geology, and climate. By contrast, the region immediately to
the area known as West Sonoma and The petition included detailed the east of the proposed AVA, within
also within the western portion of the information and supporting evidence the established Russian River Valley
larger established Sonoma Coast AVA. regarding the distinguishing features of AVA, lacks summits that exceed 1,000
The petition included several examples only the regions to the east and south of feet. Additionally, the Russian River
of the use of ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ to the proposed AVA. The Pacific Ocean is Valley AVA is dominated by large areas
refer to the region of the proposed AVA. to the west of the proposed AVA and with gentler slopes, including the Santa
For example, a 2013 Wall Street Journal cannot be used for viticultural purposes. Rosa Plain and the Green Valley that
article notes, ‘‘It’s only in the last 20 The petition did include a broad forms the established Green Valley of
years or so that the West Sonoma Coast summary of the characteristics of the the Russian River Valley AVA (27 CFR
has been recognized as a superb region region to the north of the proposed 9.57). The Petaluma Gap AVA, to the
for Burgundian varietals of Pinot Noir AVA. TTB is not including the south of the proposed West Sonoma
and Chardonnay.’’ 4 A 2014 article in information in this document because Coast AVA, also has lower elevations
Forbes is titled ‘‘California’s Edgiest the petition did not provide evidence to and gentler slopes.
Wine Region: Western Sonoma Coast.’’ 5 support the claims. However, TTB does
not consider information from that Geology
A 2015 article for Wine and Spirits
refers to ‘‘the region unofficially known region to be necessary because the term Much of the proposed West Sonoma
as ‘west [sic] Sonoma Coast’.’’ 6 Finally, ‘‘Sonoma’’ is not used to describe the Coast AVA is characterized by
the petition included a real estate listing region to the north of the proposed sedimentary rock of the Franciscan
for ‘‘West Sonoma Coast ranch land’’ for AVA, within Mendocino County. Complex, including Franciscan
sale in the town of Annapolis, Therefore, the proposed West Sonoma sandstone. Other major geological
California, which is within the proposed Coast AVA could not extend farther formations within the proposed AVA
West Sonoma Coast AVA. north even if the distinguishing features include the German Rancho Formation
of both regions were similar because and the Gualala Formation, both of
Boundary Evidence TTB regulations require the proposed which also contain sedimentary rock.
The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA name to apply to the entire To the south of the proposed AVA, the
AVA encompasses the mountainous proposed AVA. See 27 CFR 9.12(a)(1). region is dominated by the Wilson
terrain along the Pacific coastline of Grove Formation, which is comprised of
Topography
Sonoma County. The Pacific Ocean claystone, siltstone, and fine sandstone
forms the western boundary of the The petition states that the terrain of overlaying Franciscan Formation
proposed AVA, and the shared the proposed West Sonoma Coast is sedimentary rock. Northeast of the
Sonoma–Mendocino County line forms characterized by the steep, rugged proposed AVA, the Franciscan
the northern boundary. The petition mountains and ridgelines that form the Formation is prevalent, but to the
notes that the proposed AVA does not Coastal Ranges, which run parallel to southeast, the Wilson Grove Formation
extend farther north because use of the the coastline. Very little area within the is more common. Farther east, the Santa
term ‘‘Sonoma’’ does not extend into proposed AVA contains slopes of less Rosa Plain is characterized by
Mendocino County. The eastern than 5 percent, and the summits of the Quaternary alluvium and fluvial
boundary follows a series of elevation coastal mountains can exceed 1,000 feet. deposits, which are uncommon within
In the coastal regions of California, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
contours, creeks, and U.S.G.S. map
elevations below 900 feet are below the The petition states that the underlying
section lines to separate the proposed
fog line and are typically exposed to geology of a region contributes to the
AVA from the more inland region of
heavy marine fog, which can lower topography. Because the Wilson Grove
Sonoma County that has lower
temperatures and impede Formation and alluvial deposits are
elevations and warmer climates. The
photosynthesis. However, the petition more easily eroded than the geological
region east of the proposed AVA
states that within the proposed AVA, formations of the proposed AVA, the
includes the established Russian River
the ridgelines of the Coastal Ranges topography to the south and east of the
Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.66) and Northern
form protected areas below the fog line proposed AVA is characterized by lower
Sonoma AVA (27 CFR 9.70), both of
where the heavy marine fog does not elevations, rounded hills, and gentle
which have boundaries that are
reach and successful viticulture can slopes with generally deep soils. By
concurrent with portions of the
occur. The petition states that examples contrast, the proposed AVA has high
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA’s
of such protected regions within the elevations and steep, rugged slopes with
eastern boundary. The southern
proposed AVA include the areas around thin soils that have a high sand content.
boundary of the proposed West Sonoma
Freestone, Annapolis, and Occidental. The petition states that both the thin
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
4 McInerney, Jay. ‘‘West Sonoma Coast Wines Are The high elevations within the proposed soils and high sand content promote
on the Rise,’’ The Wall Street Journal (July 18, AVA also allow for vineyards to be good drainage in vineyards, which is
2013). placed above the fog. The petition states important to disease prevention.
5 Bell, Katie Kelly. ‘‘California’s Edgiest Wine
that the established Fort Ross–Seaview
Region: Western Sonoma Coast,’’ Forbes (March 6, AVA, in particular, benefits from Climate
2014).
6 Brown, Elaine Chukan. ‘‘Sonoma’s Far Coast: A elevations above the fog line. According Temperature: The proposed West
haven for pinot noir,’’ Wines and Spirits (August to the petition, commercial viticulture Sonoma Coast AVA boundary begins at
31, 2015). would likely not occur within the the Pacific coast and extends inland
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM 06DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62984/page/3.svg)
![62754 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—WIND SPEED
Average wind speed (miles per hour)
Location (direction from proposed AVA)
2010 2011 2012 2013
Valley Ford (south) .......................................................................................... 8.0 7.4 7.6 8.5
Windsor (east) ................................................................................................. 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.9
Santa Rosa (east) ............................................................................................ 3.9 4.0 4.1 N/A
Occidental (within) ........................................................................................... 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.5
Summary of Distinguishing Features example, the proposed West Sonoma Thus, the proposal to establish the West
In summary, the topography, geology, Coast AVA is largely within the Sonoma Coast AVA is not inconsistent
‘‘Marine’’ climate zone, which results in with what was envisioned when the
and climate of the proposed West
lower GDD accumulations than are North Coast AVA was established.
Sonoma Coast AVA distinguish it from
found within the eastern portion of the
the surrounding regions. The proposed Comparison of the Proposed West
Sonoma Coast AVA, which is in the
AVA has steeper slopes and reaches Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing Fort
‘‘Coastal Cool’’ climate zone.11
higher maximum elevations than the Ross–Seaview AVA
Additionally, the proposed AVA is in a
regions to the south and east. The
mountainous region with steeper slopes The Fort Ross–Seaview AVA was
proposed AVA also has lower wind
and more rugged terrain than the established by T.D. TTB–98, published
speeds than the regions to the south and
majority of the Sonoma Coast AVA. in the Federal Register on December 14,
east. Additionally, in contrast to the Comparison of the Proposed West 2011 (76 FR 77684). The Fort Ross–
region to the east, the proposed AVA Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing Seaview AVA is located within both the
has geological features that lack large North Coast AVA Sonoma Coast and North Coast AVAs
amounts of alluvium, lower GDD The North Coast AVA was established and would be located entirely within
accumulations, cooler daytime by T.D. ATF–145, published in the the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA,
temperatures and warmer nighttime Federal Register on September 21, 1983 if that AVA is established. T.D. TTB–98
temperatures, and lower wind speeds. (48 FR 42973). It includes all or portions describes the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA
To the west of the proposed AVA is the of Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, as an area of coastal ridges, mountains,
Pacific Ocean. The petition did not Marin, and Solano Counties, California. and hills of elevations generally above
provide comparison data for the region In the conclusion of the ‘‘Geographical 920 feet. T.D. TTB–98 states that these
to the north of the proposed AVA, in Features’’ section of the preamble, T.D. higher elevations are typically above the
Mendocino County, because the term ATF–145 states that ‘‘[d]ue to the fog line, allowing the AVA to receive
‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ is not used to describe enormous size of the North Coast, more sunlight and warmer temperatures
regions outside of Sonoma County; variations exist in climatic features such than the lower elevations. Additional
therefore, per TTB regulations, the as temperature, rainfall, and fog information provided by the proposed
region to the north could not be intrusion.’’ West Sonoma Coast AVA petitioner
included in an AVA called ‘‘West The proposed West Sonoma Coast shows that there are approximately 12
Sonoma Coast.’’ AVA shares the basic viticultural feature vineyards within the Fort Ross–Seaview
Comparison of the Proposed West of the North Coast AVA––the marine AVA, and they are all planted at
Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing influence that moderates growing elevations above the fog line.
Sonoma Coast AVA season temperatures in the area. The Fort Ross–Seaview AVA shares
However, the proposed AVA is much the mountainous topography and
Sonoma Coast AVA more uniform in its climatic features, marine-influenced climate of the
T.D. ATF–253, which published in namely temperature, soils, and proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
the Federal Register on June 11, 1987 topography than the diverse, However, although there are elevations
(52 FR 22304), established the Sonoma multicounty North Coast AVA. In this within the proposed West Sonoma Coast
Coast AVA in Sonoma County, regard, TTB notes that T.D. ATF–145
AVA that are above the fog line, similar
California. The primary feature of the specifically states that ‘‘approval of this
to those within the Fort Ross–Seaview
viticultural area does not preclude
Sonoma Coast AVA, as described in AVA, the proposed AVA also includes
approval of additional areas, either
T.D. ATF–253, is a marine-influenced areas at elevations below the fog line.
wholly contained with the North Coast,
climate that is cooler than the region of Some of these lower elevations are
or partially overlapping the North
Sonoma County east of the Russian sheltered from the heaviest marine fog
Coast,’’ and that ‘‘smaller viticultural
River Valley AVA. The proposed West and, therefore, can support viticulture.
areas tend to be more uniform in their
Sonoma Coast AVA shares this Additional information provided by the
geographical and climatic
characteristic with the larger Sonoma petitioner shows that there are
characteristics, while very large areas
Coast AVA. Therefore, TTB believes that approximately 15 vineyards within the
such as the North Coast tend to exhibit
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and
generally similar characteristics, in this
appears to share enough similarities to case the influence of maritime air off of outside of the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA,
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
remain within the established Sonoma the Pacific Ocean and San Pablo Bay.’’ 9 of which are planted at elevations at
Coast AVA. or below the fog line. Therefore, TTB
However, the proposed West Sonoma 11 See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic believes that although the Fort Ross–
Coast AVA does have some Zones, University of California Cooperative Seaview AVA shares the general
characteristics that distinguish it from Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986 (This topographic and climatic characteristics
the Sonoma Coast AVA, which TTB publication notes the findings of University of of the proposed West Sonoma Coast
California Extension Farm Advisors Robert Sisson
believes would warrant its and Paul Vossen regarding the climate zones of AVA, the proposed AVA has a broader
establishment as a new AVA. For Sonoma County, California.). range of elevations where viticulture
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM 06DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62984/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 234 / Thursday, December 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules 62757
(9) Proceed south in a straight line for (22) Proceed east along Fort Ross terminus, Cañada de Pogolimi land
0.6 mile to the intersection of Soda Road for approximately 262 feet to the grant, T6N/R9W; then
Springs Road and the eastern boundary intersection of the road with the middle (33) Proceed northwest in a straight
of section 7, T10N/R13W; then branch of Russian Gulch Creek in line for 0.1 mile to the marked 448-foot
(10) Proceed in a straight line section 23, T8N/R12W; then summit of an unnamed hilltop, Cañada
southeast for 1.6 miles to the (23) Proceed south along the middle de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W;
intersection of the eastern boundary of branch of Russian Gulch Creek for 1.2 then
section 17, T10N/R13W, and the 800- miles to the intersection with the 920- (34) Proceed northwest in a straight
foot elevation contour; then foot elevation contour in section 26, line for 0.6 mile to the 61-foot
(11) Proceed southeast along the 800- T8N/R12W; then benchmark along an unnamed
foot elevation contour for 2.6 miles to its (24) Proceed southeast in a straight secondary highway known locally as
intersection with an unnamed, line east for 2 miles, crossing onto the Freestone Valley Ford Road, Cañada de
unimproved road near the 862-foot Cazadero map, to the summit of Pole Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then
benchmark in section 21, T10N/R13W; Mountain in section 30, T8N/R11W; (35) Proceed west-northwest in a
then then straight line for 0.8 mile to VABM 724
(12) Proceed southeast in a straight (25) Proceed southeast in a straight in the Estero Americano land grant,
line for 0.2 mile to the intersection of line for 4.7 miles, crossing onto the T6N/R10W; then
the 600-foot elevation contour and an (36) Proceed west in a straight line for
Duncans Mills map, to the confluence of
intermittent stream in section 28, T10N/ 1.0 mile to the intersection of Salmon
Austin Creek and the Russian River,
R13W; then Creek and an intermittent stream, Estero
T7N/R11W; then
(13) Proceed south along the 600-foot Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then
(26) Proceed generally east (upstream) (37) Proceed west (downstream) along
elevation contour for 1.7 miles to its along the Russian River for 3.1 miles to
intersection with the eastern boundary Salmon Creek for 9.6 miles, crossing
the intersection of the Russian River and onto the Bodega Head map, to the
of section 33, T10N/R13W; then the Bohemian Highway in section 7,
(14) Proceed southeast in a straight mouth of the creek at the Pacific Ocean;
T7N/R10W; then then
line for 0.5 mile to the intersection of an (27) Proceed southeast along the
unnamed light-duty road known locally (38) Proceed north along the Pacific
Bohemian Highway for a total of 10.1 coastline for 51.4 miles, crossing over
as Skaggs Springs Road and an miles, crossing onto the Camp Meeker
unnamed, unimproved road known the Duncan Mills, Arched Rock, Fort
map and through the towns of Camp Ross, Plantation, and Stewarts Point
locally as Skyline Road, near the Meeker and Occidental, then crossing
Mendosoma Fire Station in section 34, maps and onto the Gualala map to the
onto the Valley Ford map and through intersection of the coastline with the
T10N/R13W; then the town of Freestone, to the
(15) Proceed southeast along the Sonoma County/Mendocino County
intersection of the Bohemian Highway line; then
unnamed, unimproved road (Skyline
and an unnamed medium-duty road (39) Proceed east along the Sonoma
Road) for total of 5.9 miles as it follows
known locally as Bodega Road near County/Mendocino County line for 5.6
Skyline Ridge and crosses onto the
benchmark (BM) 214 in section 12, miles, crossing onto the McGuire Ridge
Tombs Creek map, back onto the
T6N/R10W; then map, and returning to the beginning
Annapolis map, then back on to the
(28) Proceed northeast along Bodega point, T11N, R14W.
Tombs Creek map, to the intersection of
Road for 0.9 mile, crossing onto the Signed: July 27, 2018.
the road with the 1,200-foot elevation
Camp Meeker map, to the intersection of
contour in section 13, T9N/R13W; then John J. Manfreda,
(16) Proceed southeast along the the road with an unnamed light-duty
Administrator.
1,200-foot elevation contour for 0.6 mile road known locally as Barnett Valley
Approved: November 13, 2018.
to the intersection with Allen Creek in Road north of the marked 486-foot
elevation point in the Cañada de Jonive Timothy E. Skud,
section 18, T9N/R12W; then Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
(17) Proceed north along Allen Creek land grant, T6N/R10W; then
(29) Proceed south then east along Tariff Policy).
for 0.2 mile to the intersection with the
920-foot elevation contour in section 18, Barnett Valley Road for 2.2 miles, Editorial note: This document was
T9N/R12W; then crossing onto the Valley Ford map and received for publication by the Office of the
(18) Proceed east and then southeast then onto the Two Rock map, to the Federal Register on November 29, 2018.
intersection of Bennett Valley Road with [FR Doc. 2018–26321 Filed 12–4–18; 8:45 am]
along the meandering 920-foot elevation
contour, crossing onto the Fort Ross Burnside Road in section 17, T6N/R9W; BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
map, then onto the Tombs Creek map, then
and then back onto the Fort Ross map, (30) Proceed southeast along Burnside
to the intersection of the elevation Road for 3.2 miles to its intersection ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
contour with Jim Creek in section 21, with the 400-foot elevation contour just AGENCY
T9N/R12W; then north of an unnamed light duty road
known locally as Bloomfield Road in 40 CFR Part 16
(19) Proceed southeast along Jim
Creek for 0.7 mile to the intersection of the Cañada de Pogolimi land grant, [EPA–HQ–OEI–2014–0849; FRL–9941–43–
the creek with the northern boundary of T5N/R9W; then OEI]
section 27, T9N, R12W, then (31) Proceed west along the 400-foot
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
(20) Proceed east along the northern elevation contour for 6.7 miles, crossing Revision of the Agency’s Privacy Act
boundary of section 27 for 0.5 mile to onto the Valley Ford map, to the Regulations for EPA–63
the northeast corner of section 27; then intersection of the elevation contour AGENCY: Environmental Protection
(21) Proceed south along the eastern with an unimproved road, Cañada de Agency (EPA).
boundaries of sections 27, 34, 3, 7, 15, Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R9W; then ACTION: Proposed rule.
and 22 for 5.1 miles to the intersection (32) Proceed northwest then
of the eastern boundary of section 22 southwest along the unnamed, SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
and Fort Ross Road, T8N/R12W; then unimproved road for 0.9 mile to its Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:35 Dec 04, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM 06DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62984/page/8.svg)
Document Created: 2018-12-05 02:35:38
Document Modified: 2018-12-05 02:35:38
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received by January 7, 2019. | |
| 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. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 62750 | |
| RIN Number | 1513-AC40 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR