Proposed Expansion of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area (2005R-413P), 70472-70476 [E6-20504]
Download as PDF
70472
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 71, No. 233
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Notice No. 70]
RIN 1513–AB21
Proposed Expansion of the San
Francisco Bay Viticultural Area
(2005R–413P)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background on Viticultural Areas
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau proposes to expand
the San Francisco Bay viticultural area
in northern California. The proposed
expansion would add 88 square miles to
the viticultural area to its north in
Solano County, California. We designate
viticultural areas to allow vintners to
better describe the origin of their wines
and to allow consumers to better
identify wines they may purchase. We
invite comments on this proposed
viticultural area expansion.
DATES: We must receive written
comments on or before February 5,
2007.
You may send comments to
any of the following addresses:
• Director, Regulations and Rulings
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 70, P.O.
Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044–
4412.
• 202–927–8525 (facsimile).
• nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail).
• https://www.ttb.gov/wine/
wine_rulemaking.shtml. An online
comment form is posted with this notice
on our Web site.
• https://www.regulations.gov (Federal
e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions
for submitting comments).
You may view copies of this notice,
the petition, the appropriate maps, and
any comments we receive about this
proposal by appointment at the TTB
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Dec 04, 2006
Jkt 211001
Information Resource Center, 1310 G
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To
make an appointment, call 202–927–
2400. You may also access copies of the
notice and comments online at https://
www.ttb.gov/wine/
wine_rulemaking.shtml.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A.
Sutton, Regulations and Rulings
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No.
158, Petaluma, California 94952;
telephone 415–271–1254.
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 regulations
promulgated under the FAA Act.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
part 4) allows the establishment of
definitive viticultural areas and the use
of their names as appellations of origin
on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the
list of approved viticultural areas.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines
a viticultural area for American wine as
a delimited grape-growing region
distinguishable by geographical
features, the boundaries of which have
been recognized and defined in part 9
of the regulations. These designations
allow vintners and consumers to
attribute a given quality, reputation, or
other characteristic of a wine made from
grapes grown in an area to its
geographical origin. The establishment
of viticultural areas allows vintners to
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
describe more accurately the origin of
their wines to consumers and helps
consumers to identify wines they may
purchase. Establishment of a viticultural
area is neither an approval nor an
endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations outlines the procedure for
proposing an American viticultural area
and provides that any interested party
may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area.
Petitioners may use the same procedure
to request changes involving existing
viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the
TTB regulations requires the petition to
include—
• Evidence that the proposed
viticultural area is locally and/or
nationally known by the name specified
in the petition;
• Historical or current evidence that
supports setting the boundary of the
proposed viticultural area as the
petition specifies;
• Evidence relating to the
geographical features, such as climate,
soils, elevation, and physical features,
that distinguish the proposed
viticultural area from surrounding areas;
• A description of the specific
boundary of the proposed viticultural
area, based on features found on United
States Geological Survey (USGS) maps;
and
• A copy of the appropriate USGS
map(s) with the proposed viticultural
area’s boundary prominently marked.
San Francisco Bay and Central Coast
Expansion Petition
Hestan Vineyards, LLC, of Vallejo,
California, represented by Holland and
Knight LLP of San Francisco, California,
submitted a petition for an 88-squaremile boundary expansion that includes
portions of Solano County to the north
of the Carquinez Strait, and would
apply to both the established San
Francisco Bay viticultural area (27 CFR
9.157) and the established Central Coast
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75). After
reviewing the petition, TTB determined
that the evidence submitted in support
of the proposed expansion of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area merits
rulemaking action. On the other hand,
for the reasons outlined below, TTB also
determined that there was not sufficient
documentation to proceed with
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 5, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rulemaking for the proposed Central
Coast viticultural area expansion.
Accordingly, TTB notified the petitioner
of these determinations, and the
petitioner agreed to proceed with only
the San Francisco Bay viticultural area
expansion portion of the petition.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Central Coast Viticultural Area
Expansion
The petitioner stated in the petition:
‘‘Since the Central Coast AVA now
includes the San Francisco Bay AVA, it
would stand to reason that a county in
the San Francisco Bay Area that
encompasses all of the attributes of the
other counties included in the San
Francisco Bay AVA (i.e., coastal climate,
geology, etc.), should also be included
in the Central Coast AVA.’’ (TTB notes
that the petitioner’s use of the ‘‘San
Francisco Bay Area’’ name reflects a
larger geographical region than that
included in the established San
Francisco Bay viticultural area.) The
expansive geographical boundaries of
the established Central Coast
viticultural area include a large region
of California between the Pacific Ocean
coastline to the west, the foothill
elevations of the Coast Range to the east,
Point Conception to the south, and the
Carquinez Strait to the north.
TTB identified several concerns
related to the lack of name association
and the geographical boundaries
between the San Francisco Bay area and
Central Coast viticultural areas, as
discussed below.
The petition lacked adequate name
documentation to identify the proposed
expansion area as part of the Central
Coast viticultural area. The petitioner
relied on the Central Coast viticultural
area boundary line encumbrance of the
San Francisco Bay viticultural area,
without providing adequate,
independent documentation to
substantiate the ‘‘Central Coast’’ name
usage in the proposed Solano County
expansion area.
Consumer confusion could result if
the Central Coast viticultural area
boundary line were expanded to include
an area north of the San Francisco and
San Pablo Bays. The North Coast
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.30) includes
a portion of the San Pablo Bay west and
north shoreline. Based on petition
information and USGS maps, San Pablo
Bay, which adjoins San Francisco Bay to
its south, provides a geographically
defining landmark between the
established viticultural areas known as
‘‘Central Coast,’’ to the east and south,
and ‘‘North Coast,’’ to the north and
west.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Dec 04, 2006
Jkt 211001
San Francisco Bay Expansion Petition
Evidence
The petitioner submitted the
following information in support of the
expansion of the San Francisco Bay
viticultural area.
The San Francisco Bay area is a
loosely bound region that includes other
bodies of water, including San Pablo
Bay, the Carquinez Strait, and Suisun
Bay, the petition explains. USGS maps
of the region show that San Francisco
Bay joins San Pablo Bay to its north.
Also, the Carquinez Strait connects the
San Pablo Bay on the west with Suisun
Bay on the east.
The petition states that the proposed
expansion of the San Francisco Bay
viticultural area, which is located
adjacent to the north shores of San
Pablo Bay and the Carquinez Strait, is
an area historically, economically, and
socially considered to be a part of the
San Francisco Bay region. With the
exception of the 4,480 acres, or 7 square
miles, of the Carquinez Strait waterway,
the petition explains, the entire
proposed expansion area is on land in
western Solano County.
A previous expansion of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area was
published in the Federal Register on
June 15, 2006, at 71 FR 34522. That
expansion, effective July 17, increased
the viticultural area by about 20,000
acres to the east in Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties.
Name Evidence
A number of Government agencies
and interest groups provide services to
the nine counties in the recognized San
Francisco Bay area, including the
proposed expansion area in Solano
County, as documented in the petition.
Also, the Bay Area Council’s Web site
as of April 12, 2005, lists its nine
counties, which include Solano, San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sonoma,
and Marin, according to the petition.
Other government agencies and interest
groups using the same nine-county San
Francisco Bay area parameter include
the Association of Bay Area
Governments, Bay Area Water Transit
Authority, Bay Area Marketing
Partnership, and Bay Area Economic
Forum. Evidence of this usage was
submitted with the petition.
The City of Vallejo, in southwest
Solano County and within the proposed
San Francisco Bay expansion boundary,
serves as a key ferry transportation hub
into the City of San Francisco, the
petition documents. The Vallejo ferry
system, as explained on the Bay Area
Water Transit authority Web site, carries
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70473
thousands of passengers each week from
Solano County to the City of San
Francisco and back.
In 1987, the State of California
legislature passed a bill establishing the
‘‘San Francisco Bay Trail,’’ as noted on
page 160 of San Francisco Bay: Portrait
of an Estuary, by John Hart, and
published by the University of
California Press in 2003. Mr. Hart states
that this trail system includes the
Vallejo area of Solano County, which
the petition notes is a part of the
proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural
area expansion.
Boundary Evidence
The proposed San Francisco Bay
viticultural area expansion area
comprises an 88-square-mile area that
lies northeast of the City of San
Francisco and San Francisco Bay, the
petition explains. The proposed
boundary line of the expansion area
includes portions of San Pablo Bay’s
shoreline, the Solano and Napa
Counties boundary line, a railroad track,
and an interstate highway.
The proposed expansion area’s
northern boundary line follows the
dividing line between Napa and Solano
Counties and the Southern Pacific
railroad track between Creston and
Cordelia, as found on the USGS Cuttings
Wharf and Cordelia maps. (TTB notes
that the proposed expansion area
boundary line coincides with various
portions of the established boundaries
for the North Coast, Napa Valley (27
CFR 9.23), and Solano County Green
Valley (27 CFR 9.44) viticultural areas.)
Distinguishing Features
David G. Howell, PhD, Geologist at
Stanford University in Palo Alto,
California, Deborah Harden, PhD,
Geologist at San Jose State University,
San Jose, California, and Robert
Bornstein, PhD, Meteorologist at San
Jose State University, San Jose,
California, combined efforts to provide
petition evidence and documentation
substantiating the northerly expansion
of the San Francisco Bay viticultural
area. The petition addresses the
commonality of distinguishing features
shared by the established San Francisco
Bay viticultural area and the proposed
northern expansion area.
Geology
The petition explains the similarity of
geology, as a distinguishing feature,
between the northern portion of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area and the
proposed viticultural area expansion
into Solano County. The Franklin Ridge
landform of Contra Costa County,
located in the northmost portion of the
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
70474
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 5, 2006 / Proposed Rules
established San Francisco Bay
viticultural area, according to the
petition, continues northward into the
proposed expansion area of Solano
County. Franklin Ridge becomes known
as Sulphur Mountain Ridge in Solano
County, with the two ridges geologically
joining beneath the Carquinez Strait, the
petition states.
The north-south linkage between the
established and proposed portions of
the San Francisco Bay viticultural area
relies on the continuity of the
underlying geology, the petition states.
The bedrock formations, earthquake
faults, landforms, and soils of northern
San Francisco Bay viticultural area,
according to the petition, continue north
into the proposed expansion area of
Solano County.
The petition identifies the geological
bedrock core of the proposed expansion
area as Cretaceous sandstone and shale.
This body of rock, the petition explains,
extends northward from the Mount
Diablo region in Contra Costa County
into the proposed expansion area that
includes parts of Solano County.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Soil
The two general categories of soils in
the proposed expansion area are those
formed in salt marshes and those
formed in sandstone over shale bedrock
on uplands, as described in the Soil
Survey of Solano County, California,
issued by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in 1977.
The Solano County general soil map
documents that soils in salt marshes
predominate in areas at a low elevation
south of Vallejo. Also, the map shows
that some of the soils in the
predominant Joice, Reyes, Suisun, and
Tamba soil series are mucks or peaty
mucks.
The soils on uplands in Solano
County are common to other parts of the
San Francisco Bay viticultural area,
including areas of Alameda and Santa
Clara Counties, the petition explains.
The most prevalent soils on uplands are
in the Dibble and Los Osos series, and
are moderately deep soils formed in
weathered sandstone and shale under
climatic conditions of seasonal soil
moisture. The Altamont, Gaviota, and
Millsholm series are also on uplands,
according to the petitioner; the Rincon
series are on alluvial fans.
Climate
The eastward and inland movement
of marine air through the Golden Gate
Gap, the petition explains, dominates
the climate of the land areas adjacent to
San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay
and within the established viticultural
area boundaries. Carquinez Strait joins
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Dec 04, 2006
Jkt 211001
San Pablo Bay at the bay’s southeast
corner, according to USGS maps, and
receives the same marine air that cools
the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays,
the petitioner explains.
The Carquinez Strait funnels the
marine air to both the north and south
sides of its shoreline, according to the
petition. (TTB notes that the current San
Francisco Bay viticultural area’s
northern boundary line extends along
the south shoreline of the Carquinez
Strait, following the Contra Costa
County northern boundary line to BM
15 on the Honker Bay USGS map.) The
proposed expansion area extends
northward to include all the Carquinez
Strait and portions of Solano County,
according to the written boundary
description and maps provided with the
petition.
The current expansion petition
provides evidence and documentation
of the marine airflow, and its cooling
effect, traveling north and east from the
Golden Gate, through the San Francisco
Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Carquinez
Strait, into the proposed inland
expansion area. Although the proposed
expansion area was not included in the
original San Francisco Bay AVA
petition, since the filing of the original
petition, additional observation sites
have become available that provide a
more detailed analysis of the air flow
patterns in and around the Carquinez
Strait. Figures obtained from a new
observation site that show the typical
summer afternoon flow pattern on both
sides of the Carquinez Strait clearly
show that the Carquinez Strait is not the
northern boundary of the influence of
the marine air that has entered through
the Golden Gate Gap.
The California Air Resources Board
maps, submitted with the petition, show
that the marine influence extends both
north and south of the Carquinez Strait.
A San Francisco Bay Air Quality
Management District map shows air
flow through the Carquinez Strait on
July 31, 2000, a typical summer day.
The airflow pattern through the
Carquinez Strait brings the marine
influence to the north, east, and south
of the waterway, according to the map.
Another computerized map of the air
flow, also documented on July 31, 2000,
shows the marine air entering San
Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate
Gap, then traveling through San Pablo
Bay, and continuing east through the
Carquinez Strait, north into Suisun Bay,
and south into the Livermore Valley.
The information submitted with the
petition concludes that the Carquinez
Strait should not be considered the
northernmost boundary of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area. Marine
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
air, which is a significant distinguishing
climatic characteristic of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area and
region, is also significant in the
proposed expansion area, according to
the petition.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary
description of the petitioned-for
viticultural area expansion in the
proposed regulatory text amendment
published at the end of this notice.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required
maps, which are listed below in the
proposed regulatory text amendment.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
The proposed expansion of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area will not
affect currently approved wine labels.
The approval of this proposed
expansion may allow additional
vintners to use ‘‘San Francisco Bay’’ as
an appellation of origin on their 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 a viticultural
area name or with a brand name that
includes a viticultural area name or
other term identified as 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). Different rules apply
if a wine has a brand name containing
a viticultural area name or other
viticulturally significant term that was
used as a brand name on a label
approved before July 7, 1986. See 27
CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
We invite comments from interested
members of the public on whether we
should expand the established San
Francisco Bay viticultural area as
proposed.
The currently proposed expansion
area, TTB notes and petition-provided
USGS maps confirm, lies in an area of
southern Solano County, outside of the
North Coast viticultural area boundary
line. The proposed expansion area lies
between the boundary lines of the North
Coast and Central Coast viticultural
areas.
In addition to receiving comments on
the issues described above, we are
interested in comments on the
sufficiency and accuracy of the name,
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 5, 2006 / Proposed Rules
boundary, and other required
information submitted in support of the
petition.
Please provide any available specific
information in support of your
comments.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Submitting Comments
Submit your comments by the closing
date shown above in this notice. Your
comments must include this notice
number and your name and mailing
address. Your comments must be legible
and written in language acceptable for
public disclosure. We do not
acknowledge receipt of comments, and
we consider all comments as originals.
You may submit comments in one of
five ways:
• Mail: You may send written
comments to TTB at the address listed
in the ADDRESSES section.
• Facsimile: You may submit
comments by facsimile transmission to
202–927–8525. Faxed comments must—
(1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2) Contain a legible, written
signature; and
(3) Be no more than five pages long.
This limitation assures electronic access
to our equipment. We will not accept
faxed comments that exceed five pages.
• E-mail: You may e-mail comments
to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments transmitted
by electronic mail must—
(1) Contain your e-mail address;
(2) Reference this notice number on
the subject line; and
(3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by
11-inch paper.
• Online form: We provide a
comment form with the online copy of
this notice on our Web site at https://
www.ttb.gov/wine/
wine_rulemaking.shtml. Select the
‘‘Send comments via e-mail’’ link under
this notice number.
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To
submit comments to us via the Federal
e-rulemaking portal, visit https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
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.
any comments we receive by
appointment at the TTB Information
Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220. You may also
obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5– × 11inch page. Contact our information
specialist at the above address or by
telephone at 202–927–2400 to schedule
an appointment or to request copies of
comments.
We will post this notice and any
comments we receive on this proposal
on the TTB Web site. All name and
address information submitted with
comments will be posted, including email addresses. We may omit
voluminous attachments or material that
we consider unsuitable for posting. In
all cases, the full comment will be
available in the TTB Information
Resource Center. To access the online
copy of this notice and the submitted
comments, visit https://www.ttb.gov/
wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. Select the
‘‘View Comments’’ link under this
notice number to view the posted
comments.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this proposed
regulatory amendment, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed amendment
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 proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735.
Therefore, it requires no regulatory
assessment.
Drafting Information
N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and
Rulings Division drafted this notice.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Confidentiality
All submitted material is part of the
public record and subject to disclosure.
Do not enclose any material in your
comments that you consider
confidential or inappropriate for public
disclosure.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
Public Disclosure
You may view copies of this notice,
the petition, the appropriate maps, and
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Dec 04, 2006
Jkt 211001
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, we propose to amend 27 CFR,
chapter 1, part 9, as follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70475
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Section 9.157 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b), removing the word ‘‘and’’
at the end of paragraph (b)(42),
replacing the period with a semicolon at
the end of paragraph (b)(43), adding
new paragraphs (b)(44) through (b)(47),
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (c) and paragraph (c)(24),
redesignating paragraphs (c)(25) through
(c)(38) as (c)(31) through (c)(44), and
adding new paragraphs (c)(25) through
(c)(30), to read as follows:
§ 9.157
San Francisco Bay.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate
maps for determining the boundary of
the San Francisco Bay viticultural area
are 47 1:24,000 Scale USGS topographic
maps. They are titled:
*
*
*
*
*
(44) Cuttings Wharf, Calif.; 1949;
Photorevised 1981;
(45) Sears Point, Calif.; 1951;
Photorevised 1968;
(46) Cordelia, Calif.; 1951;
Photorevised 1980; and
(47) Fairfield South, Calif., 1949;
Photorevised 1980.
(c) Boundary. The San Francisco Bay
viticultural area is located mainly
within five counties, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and
Contra Costa, which border the San
Francisco Bay. The area also includes
portions of three other counties, Solano,
Santa Cruz, and San Benito, which are
in the general vicinity of the greater San
Francisco Bay metropolitan area. The
boundary of the San Francisco Bay
viticultural area is as described below.
*
*
*
*
*
(24) Then proceed west-southwest
along the south shoreline of the Suisun
Bay and the Carquinez Strait to its
intersection with Interstate 680 at the
Benicia-Martinez Bridge and BM 66,
T3N/R2W, on the Vine Hill Quadrangle.
(25) Then proceed generally north
following Interstate 680, crossing over
and back on the Benicia Quadrangle
map and continuing over the Fairfield
South Quadrangle map, to its
intersection with the Southern Pacific
railroad track at Cordelia, Section 12,
T4N/R3W, on the Cordelia Quadrangle
map.
(26) Then proceed generally west
along the Southern Pacific railroad track
to its intersection with the Napa and
Solano Counties boundary line in
Jameson Canyon at Creston, Section 9,
T4N/R3W, on the Cordelia Quadrangle
map.
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
70476
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 5, 2006 / Proposed Rules
(27) Then proceed generally southsoutheast, followed by straight west
along the Napa and Solano Counties
boundary line; continue straight west,
crossing over the Cuttings Wharf
Quadrangle map, to its intersection with
the east shoreline of Sonoma Creek
slough, which coincides with the
Highway 37 bridge on the Solano
County side of the creek, T4N/R5W, on
the Sears Point Quadrangle.
(28) Then proceed generally southeast
along the north and east shorelines of
San Pablo Bay, also known as the San
Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge,
crossing over the Cuttings Wharf
Quadrangle map, to its intersection with
the Breakwater line, located within the
Vallejo City boundaries and 0.7 mile
west-southwest of the beacon, T3N/
R4W, on the Mare Island Quadrangle.
(29) Then proceed 1.2 miles straight
south-southwest to its intersection with
the San Pablo Bay shoreline at BM 14,
west of Davis Point, T3N/R4W, on the
Mare Island Quadrangle.
(30) Then proceed generally south
along the contiguous eastern shorelines
of San Pablo Bay and San Francisco
Bay, crossing over the Richmond and
San Quentin Quadrangle maps, to its
intersection with the San Francisco/
Oakland Bay Bridge on the Oakland
West Quadrangle.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: November 28, 2006.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–20504 Filed 12–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Parts 40, 41, 44, and 45
[Notice No. 69; Re: Notice No. 65]
RIN 1513–AB34
Tax Classification of Cigars and
Cigarettes
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
extension of comment period.
ycherry on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In response to an industry
member request, the Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau extends
the comment period for Notice No. 65,
Tax Classification of Cigars and
Cigarettes, a notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on October 25, 2006, for an
additional 90 days.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:17 Dec 04, 2006
Jkt 211001
Written comments on Notice No.
65 must now be received on or before
March 26, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments to
any of the following addresses—
• Director, Regulations and Rulings
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 65, P.O.
Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044–
4412.
• 202–927–8525 (facsimile).
• nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail).
• https://www.ttb.gov/
regulations_laws/all_rulemaking.shtml.
An online comment form is posted with
this notice on our Web site.
• https://www.regulations.gov. Federal
e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions
for submitting comments.
You may view copies of this
extension notice, Notice No. 65, and any
comments we receive by appointment at
the TTB Information Resource Center,
1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC
20220. To make an appointment, call
202–927–2400. You may also access
copies of this extension notice, Notice
No. 65, and the related comments online
at https://www.ttb.gov/regulations_laws/
all_rulemaking.shtml.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda Wade Chapman, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street,
NW., Suite 200–E, Washington, DC
20220; telephone 202–927–8210; or email Linda.Chapman@ttb.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 25, 2006, the Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)
published Notice No. 65, Tax
Classification of Cigars and Cigarettes,
in the Federal Register (71 FR 62506).
In that notice of proposed rulemaking,
TTB requested public comment on
proposed amendments to our
regulations regarding the classification
of cigars and cigarettes for Federal
excise tax purposes. As originally
published, the comment period for
Notice No. 65, was scheduled to close
on December 26, 2006.
After publication of Notice No. 65,
TTB received a request from the Cigar
Association of America, Inc. (CAA) to
extend the comment period for Notice
No. 65 for 90 days beyond the December
26, 2006, closing date. In its letter to
TTB, CAA lists three reasons for the
extension request. First, CAA notes that
Notice No. 65 raises numerous complex
and important issues relating to the tax
classification of cigars and cigarettes
and the proposed method for measuring
total reducing sugars. Second, CAA
states that it requires additional time to
coordinate with its domestic and foreign
members to consider the impact of the
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed regulatory changes on the
industry and to evaluate the analytical
method TTB used to measure total
reducing sugars. Third, CAA notes that
the December 26, 2006, deadline for
comments falls over two major holidays,
which will hinder its ability to collect
data and comments from its members.
In response to this request, TTB
extends the comment period for Notice
No. 65 for an additional 90 days.
Therefore, comments on Notice No. 65
are now due on or before March 26,
2007.
Dated: November 21, 2006.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–20506 Filed 12–4–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 70
[EPA–R07–OAR–2006–0900; FRL–8250–6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Operating
Permits Program; State of Missouri
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and
operating permits program revision
submitted by the State of Missouri to
update the ambient air quality
standards, sampling methods,
definitions, and common reference
methods and tables. The update also
includes references to implement the 8hour ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards that were
finalized on July 18, 1997.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action must be received in writing by
January 4, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2006–0900 by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: algoe-eakin.amy@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Amy Algoe-Eakin,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM
05DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 5, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70472-70476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20504]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 5, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 70472]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Notice No. 70]
RIN 1513-AB21
Proposed Expansion of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area
(2005R-413P)
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to
expand the San Francisco Bay viticultural area in northern California.
The proposed expansion would add 88 square miles to the viticultural
area to its north in Solano County, California. We designate
viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of
their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may
purchase. We invite comments on this proposed viticultural area
expansion.
DATES: We must receive written comments on or before February 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses:
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 70, P.O. Box 14412,
Washington, DC 20044-4412.
202-927-8525 (facsimile).
nprm@ttb.gov (e-mail).
https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. An online
comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site.
https://www.regulations.gov (Federal e-rulemaking portal;
follow instructions for submitting comments).
You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate
maps, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at
the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC
20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access
copies of the notice and comments online at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/
wine_rulemaking.shtml.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St.,
No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-1254.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act 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
regulations promulgated under the FAA Act.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains
the list of approved viticultural areas.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries
of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations.
These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given
quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes
grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of
viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the
origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify
wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in
that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure
for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to
request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b)
of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include--
Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally
and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
Historical or current evidence that supports setting the
boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as
climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the
proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
A description of the specific boundary of the proposed
viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological
Survey (USGS) maps; and
A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed
viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.
San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Expansion Petition
Hestan Vineyards, LLC, of Vallejo, California, represented by
Holland and Knight LLP of San Francisco, California, submitted a
petition for an 88-square-mile boundary expansion that includes
portions of Solano County to the north of the Carquinez Strait, and
would apply to both the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area
(27 CFR 9.157) and the established Central Coast viticultural area (27
CFR 9.75). After reviewing the petition, TTB determined that the
evidence submitted in support of the proposed expansion of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area merits rulemaking action. On the other
hand, for the reasons outlined below, TTB also determined that there
was not sufficient documentation to proceed with
[[Page 70473]]
rulemaking for the proposed Central Coast viticultural area expansion.
Accordingly, TTB notified the petitioner of these determinations, and
the petitioner agreed to proceed with only the San Francisco Bay
viticultural area expansion portion of the petition.
Central Coast Viticultural Area Expansion
The petitioner stated in the petition: ``Since the Central Coast
AVA now includes the San Francisco Bay AVA, it would stand to reason
that a county in the San Francisco Bay Area that encompasses all of the
attributes of the other counties included in the San Francisco Bay AVA
(i.e., coastal climate, geology, etc.), should also be included in the
Central Coast AVA.'' (TTB notes that the petitioner's use of the ``San
Francisco Bay Area'' name reflects a larger geographical region than
that included in the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area.)
The expansive geographical boundaries of the established Central Coast
viticultural area include a large region of California between the
Pacific Ocean coastline to the west, the foothill elevations of the
Coast Range to the east, Point Conception to the south, and the
Carquinez Strait to the north.
TTB identified several concerns related to the lack of name
association and the geographical boundaries between the San Francisco
Bay area and Central Coast viticultural areas, as discussed below.
The petition lacked adequate name documentation to identify the
proposed expansion area as part of the Central Coast viticultural area.
The petitioner relied on the Central Coast viticultural area boundary
line encumbrance of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, without
providing adequate, independent documentation to substantiate the
``Central Coast'' name usage in the proposed Solano County expansion
area.
Consumer confusion could result if the Central Coast viticultural
area boundary line were expanded to include an area north of the San
Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The North Coast viticultural area (27 CFR
9.30) includes a portion of the San Pablo Bay west and north shoreline.
Based on petition information and USGS maps, San Pablo Bay, which
adjoins San Francisco Bay to its south, provides a geographically
defining landmark between the established viticultural areas known as
``Central Coast,'' to the east and south, and ``North Coast,'' to the
north and west.
San Francisco Bay Expansion Petition Evidence
The petitioner submitted the following information in support of
the expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area.
The San Francisco Bay area is a loosely bound region that includes
other bodies of water, including San Pablo Bay, the Carquinez Strait,
and Suisun Bay, the petition explains. USGS maps of the region show
that San Francisco Bay joins San Pablo Bay to its north. Also, the
Carquinez Strait connects the San Pablo Bay on the west with Suisun Bay
on the east.
The petition states that the proposed expansion of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area, which is located adjacent to the north
shores of San Pablo Bay and the Carquinez Strait, is an area
historically, economically, and socially considered to be a part of the
San Francisco Bay region. With the exception of the 4,480 acres, or 7
square miles, of the Carquinez Strait waterway, the petition explains,
the entire proposed expansion area is on land in western Solano County.
A previous expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area was
published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2006, at 71 FR 34522.
That expansion, effective July 17, increased the viticultural area by
about 20,000 acres to the east in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Name Evidence
A number of Government agencies and interest groups provide
services to the nine counties in the recognized San Francisco Bay area,
including the proposed expansion area in Solano County, as documented
in the petition. Also, the Bay Area Council's Web site as of April 12,
2005, lists its nine counties, which include Solano, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin,
according to the petition. Other government agencies and interest
groups using the same nine-county San Francisco Bay area parameter
include the Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Water Transit
Authority, Bay Area Marketing Partnership, and Bay Area Economic Forum.
Evidence of this usage was submitted with the petition.
The City of Vallejo, in southwest Solano County and within the
proposed San Francisco Bay expansion boundary, serves as a key ferry
transportation hub into the City of San Francisco, the petition
documents. The Vallejo ferry system, as explained on the Bay Area Water
Transit authority Web site, carries thousands of passengers each week
from Solano County to the City of San Francisco and back.
In 1987, the State of California legislature passed a bill
establishing the ``San Francisco Bay Trail,'' as noted on page 160 of
San Francisco Bay: Portrait of an Estuary, by John Hart, and published
by the University of California Press in 2003. Mr. Hart states that
this trail system includes the Vallejo area of Solano County, which the
petition notes is a part of the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural
area expansion.
Boundary Evidence
The proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area expansion area
comprises an 88-square-mile area that lies northeast of the City of San
Francisco and San Francisco Bay, the petition explains. The proposed
boundary line of the expansion area includes portions of San Pablo
Bay's shoreline, the Solano and Napa Counties boundary line, a railroad
track, and an interstate highway.
The proposed expansion area's northern boundary line follows the
dividing line between Napa and Solano Counties and the Southern Pacific
railroad track between Creston and Cordelia, as found on the USGS
Cuttings Wharf and Cordelia maps. (TTB notes that the proposed
expansion area boundary line coincides with various portions of the
established boundaries for the North Coast, Napa Valley (27 CFR 9.23),
and Solano County Green Valley (27 CFR 9.44) viticultural areas.)
Distinguishing Features
David G. Howell, PhD, Geologist at Stanford University in Palo
Alto, California, Deborah Harden, PhD, Geologist at San Jose State
University, San Jose, California, and Robert Bornstein, PhD,
Meteorologist at San Jose State University, San Jose, California,
combined efforts to provide petition evidence and documentation
substantiating the northerly expansion of the San Francisco Bay
viticultural area. The petition addresses the commonality of
distinguishing features shared by the established San Francisco Bay
viticultural area and the proposed northern expansion area.
Geology
The petition explains the similarity of geology, as a
distinguishing feature, between the northern portion of the San
Francisco Bay viticultural area and the proposed viticultural area
expansion into Solano County. The Franklin Ridge landform of Contra
Costa County, located in the northmost portion of the
[[Page 70474]]
established San Francisco Bay viticultural area, according to the
petition, continues northward into the proposed expansion area of
Solano County. Franklin Ridge becomes known as Sulphur Mountain Ridge
in Solano County, with the two ridges geologically joining beneath the
Carquinez Strait, the petition states.
The north-south linkage between the established and proposed
portions of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area relies on the
continuity of the underlying geology, the petition states. The bedrock
formations, earthquake faults, landforms, and soils of northern San
Francisco Bay viticultural area, according to the petition, continue
north into the proposed expansion area of Solano County.
The petition identifies the geological bedrock core of the proposed
expansion area as Cretaceous sandstone and shale. This body of rock,
the petition explains, extends northward from the Mount Diablo region
in Contra Costa County into the proposed expansion area that includes
parts of Solano County.
Soil
The two general categories of soils in the proposed expansion area
are those formed in salt marshes and those formed in sandstone over
shale bedrock on uplands, as described in the Soil Survey of Solano
County, California, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in
1977.
The Solano County general soil map documents that soils in salt
marshes predominate in areas at a low elevation south of Vallejo. Also,
the map shows that some of the soils in the predominant Joice, Reyes,
Suisun, and Tamba soil series are mucks or peaty mucks.
The soils on uplands in Solano County are common to other parts of
the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, including areas of Alameda and
Santa Clara Counties, the petition explains. The most prevalent soils
on uplands are in the Dibble and Los Osos series, and are moderately
deep soils formed in weathered sandstone and shale under climatic
conditions of seasonal soil moisture. The Altamont, Gaviota, and
Millsholm series are also on uplands, according to the petitioner; the
Rincon series are on alluvial fans.
Climate
The eastward and inland movement of marine air through the Golden
Gate Gap, the petition explains, dominates the climate of the land
areas adjacent to San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay and within the
established viticultural area boundaries. Carquinez Strait joins San
Pablo Bay at the bay's southeast corner, according to USGS maps, and
receives the same marine air that cools the San Francisco and San Pablo
Bays, the petitioner explains.
The Carquinez Strait funnels the marine air to both the north and
south sides of its shoreline, according to the petition. (TTB notes
that the current San Francisco Bay viticultural area's northern
boundary line extends along the south shoreline of the Carquinez
Strait, following the Contra Costa County northern boundary line to BM
15 on the Honker Bay USGS map.) The proposed expansion area extends
northward to include all the Carquinez Strait and portions of Solano
County, according to the written boundary description and maps provided
with the petition.
The current expansion petition provides evidence and documentation
of the marine airflow, and its cooling effect, traveling north and east
from the Golden Gate, through the San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and
Carquinez Strait, into the proposed inland expansion area. Although the
proposed expansion area was not included in the original San Francisco
Bay AVA petition, since the filing of the original petition, additional
observation sites have become available that provide a more detailed
analysis of the air flow patterns in and around the Carquinez Strait.
Figures obtained from a new observation site that show the typical
summer afternoon flow pattern on both sides of the Carquinez Strait
clearly show that the Carquinez Strait is not the northern boundary of
the influence of the marine air that has entered through the Golden
Gate Gap.
The California Air Resources Board maps, submitted with the
petition, show that the marine influence extends both north and south
of the Carquinez Strait. A San Francisco Bay Air Quality Management
District map shows air flow through the Carquinez Strait on July 31,
2000, a typical summer day. The airflow pattern through the Carquinez
Strait brings the marine influence to the north, east, and south of the
waterway, according to the map. Another computerized map of the air
flow, also documented on July 31, 2000, shows the marine air entering
San Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate Gap, then traveling through
San Pablo Bay, and continuing east through the Carquinez Strait, north
into Suisun Bay, and south into the Livermore Valley.
The information submitted with the petition concludes that the
Carquinez Strait should not be considered the northernmost boundary of
the San Francisco Bay viticultural area. Marine air, which is a
significant distinguishing climatic characteristic of the San Francisco
Bay viticultural area and region, is also significant in the proposed
expansion area, according to the petition.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for
viticultural area expansion in the proposed regulatory text amendment
published at the end of this notice.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, which are listed below
in the proposed regulatory text amendment.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
The proposed expansion of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area
will not affect currently approved wine labels. The approval of this
proposed expansion may allow additional vintners to use ``San Francisco
Bay'' as an appellation of origin on their 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 a viticultural area name or with a brand name
that includes a viticultural area name or other term identified as
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). Different rules apply if
a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other
viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a
label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether
we should expand the established San Francisco Bay viticultural area as
proposed.
The currently proposed expansion area, TTB notes and petition-
provided USGS maps confirm, lies in an area of southern Solano County,
outside of the North Coast viticultural area boundary line. The
proposed expansion area lies between the boundary lines of the North
Coast and Central Coast viticultural areas.
In addition to receiving comments on the issues described above, we
are interested in comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name,
[[Page 70475]]
boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the
petition.
Please provide any available specific information in support of
your comments.
Submitting Comments
Submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and
mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language
acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of
comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit
comments in one of five ways:
Mail: You may send written comments to TTB at the address
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile
transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must--
(1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures
electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments
that exceed five pages.
E-mail: You may e-mail comments to nprm@ttb.gov. Comments
transmitted by electronic mail must--
(1) Contain your e-mail address;
(2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
(3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper.
Online form: We provide a comment form with the online
copy of this notice on our Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_
rulemaking.shtml. Select the ``Send comments via e-mail'' link under
this notice number.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: To submit comments to us via
the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit https://www.regulations.gov and
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
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 material is part of the public record and subject to
disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you
consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Public Disclosure
You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate
maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information
Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may
also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our
information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-
2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments.
We will post this notice and any comments we receive on this
proposal on the TTB Web site. All name and address information
submitted with comments will be posted, including e-mail addresses. We
may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable
for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the
TTB Information Resource Center. To access the online copy of this
notice and the submitted comments, visit https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_
rulemaking.shtml. Select the ``View Comments'' link under this notice
number to view the posted comments.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this proposed regulatory amendment, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The proposed amendment 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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires
no regulatory assessment.
Drafting Information
N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this
notice.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 27
CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
2. Section 9.157 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b), removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(b)(42), replacing the period with a semicolon at the end of paragraph
(b)(43), adding new paragraphs (b)(44) through (b)(47), revising the
introductory text of paragraph (c) and paragraph (c)(24), redesignating
paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(38) as (c)(31) through (c)(44), and
adding new paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(30), to read as follows:
Sec. 9.157 San Francisco Bay.
* * * * *
(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate maps for determining the
boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area are 47 1:24,000
Scale USGS topographic maps. They are titled:
* * * * *
(44) Cuttings Wharf, Calif.; 1949; Photorevised 1981;
(45) Sears Point, Calif.; 1951; Photorevised 1968;
(46) Cordelia, Calif.; 1951; Photorevised 1980; and
(47) Fairfield South, Calif., 1949; Photorevised 1980.
(c) Boundary. The San Francisco Bay viticultural area is located
mainly within five counties, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Alameda, and Contra Costa, which border the San Francisco Bay. The area
also includes portions of three other counties, Solano, Santa Cruz, and
San Benito, which are in the general vicinity of the greater San
Francisco Bay metropolitan area. The boundary of the San Francisco Bay
viticultural area is as described below.
* * * * *
(24) Then proceed west-southwest along the south shoreline of the
Suisun Bay and the Carquinez Strait to its intersection with Interstate
680 at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and BM 66, T3N/R2W, on the Vine Hill
Quadrangle.
(25) Then proceed generally north following Interstate 680,
crossing over and back on the Benicia Quadrangle map and continuing
over the Fairfield South Quadrangle map, to its intersection with the
Southern Pacific railroad track at Cordelia, Section 12, T4N/R3W, on
the Cordelia Quadrangle map.
(26) Then proceed generally west along the Southern Pacific
railroad track to its intersection with the Napa and Solano Counties
boundary line in Jameson Canyon at Creston, Section 9, T4N/R3W, on the
Cordelia Quadrangle map.
[[Page 70476]]
(27) Then proceed generally south-southeast, followed by straight
west along the Napa and Solano Counties boundary line; continue
straight west, crossing over the Cuttings Wharf Quadrangle map, to its
intersection with the east shoreline of Sonoma Creek slough, which
coincides with the Highway 37 bridge on the Solano County side of the
creek, T4N/R5W, on the Sears Point Quadrangle.
(28) Then proceed generally southeast along the north and east
shorelines of San Pablo Bay, also known as the San Pablo Bay National
Wildlife Refuge, crossing over the Cuttings Wharf Quadrangle map, to
its intersection with the Breakwater line, located within the Vallejo
City boundaries and 0.7 mile west-southwest of the beacon, T3N/R4W, on
the Mare Island Quadrangle.
(29) Then proceed 1.2 miles straight south-southwest to its
intersection with the San Pablo Bay shoreline at BM 14, west of Davis
Point, T3N/R4W, on the Mare Island Quadrangle.
(30) Then proceed generally south along the contiguous eastern
shorelines of San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay, crossing over the
Richmond and San Quentin Quadrangle maps, to its intersection with the
San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge on the Oakland West Quadrangle.
* * * * *
Dated: November 28, 2006.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-20504 Filed 12-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P