Proposed Expansions of the Russian River Valley and Northern Sonoma Viticultural Areas (2008R-031P), 49123-49131 [E8-19327]

Agencies

• Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
• DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49123-49131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19327]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 90; Docket No. TTB-2008-0009]
RIN 1513-AB57


Proposed Expansions of the Russian River Valley and Northern 
Sonoma Viticultural Areas (2008R-031P)

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 Russian River Valley and Northern Sonoma American 
viticultural areas in Sonoma County, California. The Russian River 
Valley viticultural area proposed expansion of 14,044 acres would 
increase the size of that viticultural area to 169,028 acres. The 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area proposed expansion of approximately 
44,244 acres would increase the size of that viticultural area to 
394,088 acres. 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 change to our regulations.

DATES: We must receive written comments on or before October 20, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses:
     https://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form 
for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2008-0009 at 
``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal); or
     Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-
4412.
    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.
    You may view copies of this notice, selected supporting materials, 
and any comments we receive about this proposal at https://
www.regulations.gov within Docket No. TTB-2008-0009. A link to that 
docket is posted on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_
rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 90. You also may view copies of this 
notice, all related petitions, maps or other supporting materials, and 
any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB 
Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 
Please call 202-927-2400 to make an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco 
Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Rulings Division, P.O. Box 18152, 
Roanoke, VA 24014; telephone (540) 344-9333.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas

TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe 
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt 
beverages. The FAA Act requires that these regulations, among

[[Page 49124]]

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 geographic origin. The establishment of 
viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the 
origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify 
wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is 
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in 
that area.

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure 
for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any 
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region 
as a viticultural area. 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.

Russian River Valley Expansion Petition

    Gallo Family Vineyards submitted a petition proposing a 14,044-acre 
expansion of the established Russian River Valley viticultural area (27 
CFR 9.66). The proposed expansion would increase the established 
viticultural area's acreage by approximately 9 percent, to 169,028 
acres. The petitioner explains that approximately 550 acres of the 
proposed expansion area were planted to grapes at the time of this 
petition. The petitioner's Two Rock Ranch Vineyard, with 350 acres 
planted to grapes, lies near the southern end of the proposed expansion 
area.
    The Russian River Valley viticultural area is located approximately 
50 miles north of San Francisco in central Sonoma County, California. 
The viticultural area was originally established by Treasury Decision 
(T.D.) ATF-159, published in the Federal Register (48 FR 48813) on 
October 21, 1983. It was expanded by 767 acres in T.D. TTB-7, published 
in the Federal Register (68 FR 67370) on December 2, 2003, and again by 
30,200 acres in T.D. TTB-32, published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
53299) on September 8, 2005. Although T.D. TTB-32 states that after the 
2005 expansion the viticultural area covered 126,600 acres, the current 
petition provides information updating the present size of the 
viticultural area to a total of 154,984 acres.
    The current Russian River Valley viticultural area, with the 
exception of its southern tip, lies within the Northern Sonoma 
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.70). The Northern Sonoma viticultural area, 
in turn, lies largely within the Sonoma Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 
9.116). The Northern Sonoma and Sonoma Coast viticultural areas are 
both entirely within the North Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.30).
    The current Russian River Valley viticultural area also entirely 
encompasses two smaller viticultural areas--in its northeastern corner, 
the Chalk Hill viticultural area (27 CFR 9.52), and in the southwest, 
the Green Valley of Russian River Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 
9.57).
    According to the petition, the proposed expansion would extend the 
current viticultural area boundary south and east, encompassing land 
just west of the cities of Rohnert Park and Cotati. The proposed 
expansion area lies within the Sonoma Coast and North Coast 
viticultural areas but not within the Northern Sonoma viticultural 
area. According to the petition, the proposed expansion area lies 
almost entirely within the Russian River Valley watershed, is 
historically part of the Russian River Valley, and shares all the 
significant distinguishing features of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area.

Name Evidence

    The petitioner states that the proposed expansion area is widely 
recognized as part of the Russian River watershed, a key criterion 
cited in past rulemaking documents regarding the existing viticultural 
area. T.D. ATF-159 states that the Russian River Valley viticultural 
area ``includes those areas through which flow the Russian River or 
some of its tributaries * * *.'' Moreover, the petitioner contends that 
before the establishment of the current viticultural area boundary, the 
proposed expansion area was commonly considered part of the Russian 
River Valley.
    The petitioner includes several pieces of evidence showing the 
expansion area's inclusion in the Russian River watershed. A submitted 
map shows that almost all the proposed expansion area lies within the 
Russian River watershed (see ``The California Interagency Watershed Map 
of 1999,'' published by the California Resources Agency, updated 2004). 
The petitioner notes that drainage is through the Laguna de Santa Rosa 
waterway beginning near the east side of the proposed expansion area 
and flowing west and north through the current viticultural area. Thus, 
the waterway provides a common connection between the two areas.
    The petitioner includes an informational brochure published by the 
Russian River Watershed Association (RRWA), an association of local 
governments and districts that coordinates regional programs to protect 
or improve the quality of the Russian River watershed. A map in the 
brochure shows that the watershed comprises both the current 
viticultural area and the area covered by the proposed expansion.
    The petitioner submits a letter in which the RRWA asks the 
California Department of Transportation to place a sign marking the 
southern boundary of the Russian River watershed at a point on 
northbound Highway 101 near the City of Cotati in Sonoma County, 
California. This point is on the southeastern boundary of the proposed 
expansion area. The petitioner notes that the State has installed the 
requested sign and a sign at another point on the southern boundary of 
the proposed expansion area.

[[Page 49125]]

    Also submitted with the petition is 2002 water assessment data 
published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This data 
includes the expansion area in its assessment of the Russian River 
watershed. Finally, the petitioner includes a Russian River Valley area 
tourism map that encompasses the proposed expansion area (see ``Russian 
River Map,'' (https://russianrivertravel.com/)).
    Several documents relating to the agricultural and economic history 
of Sonoma County were also submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner 
states that they show that the proposed expansion area and the current 
viticultural area share a history of grape growing. For example, an 
1893 survey compares the yields of individual grape growers in the 
established viticultural area with those of growers in the proposed 
expansion area (see ``History of the Sonoma Viticultural District,'' by 
Ernest P. Peninou, Nomis Press, 1998). The petitioner asserts that this 
document clearly shows that growers in the two areas grew similar grape 
varieties under similar growing conditions with similar yields.
    A letter from Robert Theiller submitted with the petition describes 
the family-owned Xavier Theiller Winery. The winery, now defunct, 
operated in the proposed expansion area from 1904 to 1938. According to 
Mr. Theiller, it crushed grapes from both the area encompassed by the 
current Russian River Valley viticultural area and the area covered by 
the proposed expansion. The letter specifically states that ``* * * 
people involved in grape growing and other agriculture in the area of 
the winery knew that [the proposed expansion area] was part of the 
Russian River Valley.''
    The petition also includes a letter from wine historian William F. 
Heintz. Mr. Heintz is the author of ``Wine and Viticulture History of 
the Region Known as the Russian River Appellation'' (Russian River 
Valley Winegrowers, 1999). In his letter, Mr. Heintz writes:

    I agree with the observation in your petition that the proposed 
expansion area and the main part of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area, which lies to the north, have historically been 
part of one region in terms of common climate and geographic 
features, settlement, and the development of agriculture and 
transportation. For these reasons, I have always considered the 
proposed expansion area and the area to the north that is in the 
current Russian River Valley viticultural area to belong together. 
In my opinion, the proposed expansion area is part of the same 
historical district as the existing Russian River Valley 
viticultural area.

Boundary Evidence

    According to the petitioner, the 2005 expansion created an 
artificial line for the southeast boundary. Proceeding south down the 
U.S. 101 corridor, it abruptly turns due west at Todd Road. 
Consequently, on a map, the Russian River Valley viticultural area 
appears to have had a ``bite'' taken out of its southeastern corner 
despite the fact that it and the proposed expansion area share common 
features of climate, soil, and watershed.
    The proposed expansion would change the southeastern boundary of 
the current Russian River Valley viticultural area. At a point where 
the current southern boundary now abruptly turns north, the proposed 
new boundary line would generally continue to follow the defining ridge 
on the southern flank of the Russian River watershed. It would turn 
north at U.S. 101, eventually meeting the southeast corner of the 
existing boundary, adding an area almost entirely within the Russian 
River watershed.

Distinguishing Features

Climate
    Past rulemakings regarding the Russian River Valley viticultural 
area have stated that coastal fog greatly affects the area's climate. 
T.D. TTB-32 at 70 FR 53298 states, for example, that ``Fog is the 
single most unifying and significant feature of the previously 
established Russian River Valley viticultural area.'' The petitioner 
states that the proposed expansion area lies directly in the path of 
the fog that moves from the ocean into southern and central Sonoma 
County; thus, the same fog influences both the proposed expansion area 
and the current viticultural area. Consequently, there is no ``fog 
line'' dividing the current viticultural area and the proposed 
expansion area, according to the petitioner.
    The petitioner provides a report showing the effect of the fog on 
the climate of the current viticultural area and proposed expansion 
area (see ``Sonoma County Climatic Zones,'' Paul Vossen, University of 
California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986 (https://
cesonoma.ucdavis.edu/)). The report describes the fog as passing 
through the Petaluma Gap and into the expansion area, as follows:

    The major climatic influence in Sonoma County is determined by 
the marine (ocean) air flow and the effect of the geography 
diverting that air flow. During an average summer there are many 
days when fog maintains a band of cold air all around the coastline 
and cool breezes blow a fog bank in through the Petaluma Gap 
northward toward Santa Rosa and northwestward toward Sebastopol. 
This fog bank is accompanied by a rapid decrease in temperature 
which can be as much as 50 [deg]F.

    Additionally, the petitioner provides an online article delineating 
the presence of fog in the proposed expansion area (``Fog Noir,'' by 
Rod Smith, September/October 2005 at https://www.privateclubs.com/
Archives/2005-sept-oct/wine_fog-noir.htm. The article describes 
satellite images of fog moving through the Russian River Valley, as 
follows:

    Until recently everyone assumed that the Russian River itself 
drew the fog inland and distributed it over the terrain west of 
Santa Rosa. Supplemental fog, it was thought, also came in from the 
southwest over the marshy lowlands along the coast between Point 
Reyes and Bodega Bay--the so-called Petaluma Wind Gap.
    In fact, it now appears to be the other way around. A new 
generation of satellite photography, sensitive enough to pick up 
translucent layers of moist air near the ground, shows for the first 
time the movement of the fog throughout the Russian River Valley 
region.
* * * * *
    In Bobbitt's snapshot, the fog pours, literally pours, through 
the Petaluma Gap. The ocean dumps it ashore and the inland heat sink 
reels it in * * *.

    According to the petitioner, the proposed expansion area also has 
the same ``coastal cool'' climate as the current Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. T.D. ATF-159, T.D. TTB-7, and T.D. TTB-32 refer to 
the Winkler degree-day system, which classifies climatic regions for 
grape growing. In the Winkler system, heat accumulation is measured 
during the typical grape-growing season from April to October. One 
degree day accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean 
temperature is above 50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for 
grapevine growth (see ``General Viticulture,'' Albert J. Winkler, 
University of California Press, 1974). As noted in T.D. ATF-159, the 
Russian River Valley viticultural area is termed ``coastal cool'' and 
has an annual range of 2,000 to 2,800 degree days.
    The petitioner concedes that the ``Sonoma County Climate Zones'' 
report cited above would place most of the proposed expansion area and 
part of the 2005 expansion area within the ``marine'' zone, instead of 
the warmer coastal cool zone. However, the petitioner argues that at 
the time of the 2005 expansion, TTB recognized that more current 
information had superseded the information in the 1986 report. Further, 
the petitioner argues

[[Page 49126]]

that climate information included in the petition and presented below 
shows that the proposed expansion area actually has a coastal cool 
climate.
    Using the Winkler system, the petitioner provides a table that 
includes a complete degree day data set for the April through October 
growing season at seven vineyards, including the petitioner's Two Rock 
Ranch Vineyard in the southern part of the proposed expansion area. The 
table is reproduced below.

                                        Average Growing Season 1983-2005
                                   [The 2005 expansion used 2001 climate data]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Annual degree
                  Vineyard                          days                      Establishment of area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osley West.................................             2,084   2005 expansion.
Two Rock Ranch.............................             2,227   Proposed expansion.
Bloomfield.................................             2,332   2005 expansion.
Laguna Ranch...............................             2,403   1983 establishment.
Osley East.................................             2,567   2005 expansion.
MacMurray Ranch............................             2,601   1983 establishment.
Le Carrefour...............................             2,636   2005 expansion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner states that the table shows that all seven 
vineyards, including the Two Rock Ranch in the proposed expansion area, 
fall within the coastal cool climate range of 2,000 to 2,800 annual 
degree days. The petitioner notes the consistency of the degree day 
data for the 1983 establishment of the viticultural area, the 2005 
expansion, and the current proposed expansion. The petitioner states 
that the degree day data in the table shows that the proposed expansion 
area has the same climate as the current Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. Further, the petitioner provides a raster map 
showing that annual average degree days in the proposed expansion area 
are within the same range as much of the existing viticultural area 
(see ``Growing Degree Days'' for Sonoma County (1951-80 average), 
published by the Spatial Climate Analysis Service, Oregon State 
University (https://www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/)).
    The petitioner notes that the annual average number of hours 
between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the April through October 
growing season for 1996-98 at the Two Rock Ranch Vineyard was 940 
hours. Based on the ``Sonoma County Climatic Zones'' map, this average 
lies within the 800- to 1100-hour range that characterizes the coastal 
cool zone. The marine zone has fewer than 800 hours between 70 and 90 
degrees Fahrenheit during the growing season.
    The petitioner submits a report, written at the request of the 
petitioner, that includes a detailed analysis of the climate of the 
proposed expansion area. The petitioner requested expert commentary on 
the proposed expansion area and states that the report's author, 
Patrick L. Shabram, geographic consultant, has extensive experience in 
Sonoma County viticulture.
    Mr. Shabram disputes the idea that the proposed expansion area is 
in a marine climate zone. Mr. Shabram cites three main factors in 
support of a determination that the climate zone of the proposed 
expansion area is not marine. First, successful viticulture would not 
be possible in a true marine zone because of insufficient solar 
radiation. Second, the proposed expansion area is well inland as 
compared to the rest of the marine zone; climatic conditions in the 
proposed expansion area would not be characteristic of a marine zone. 
Finally, Mr. Shabram states that the petitioner's climate data 
(summarized above) ``* * * clearly demonstrates that the area should be 
classified as `Coastal Cool,' rather than the Marine climate type.''
    Mr. Shabram provided the petitioner with a map that depicts all the 
proposed expansion area as belonging to the coastal cool zone (see 
``Revised Sonoma County Climatic Zones of the Russian River Valley 
Area,'' by Patrick L. Shabram, 2007, based on ``Sonoma County Climatic 
Zones'' and ``Revised Coastal Cool/Marine Climate Zones Boundary,'' by 
Patrick L. Shabram).
Topography and Elevation
    According to the petitioner, the southernmost portion of the 
proposed expansion area is on the ``Merced Hills'' of the Wilson Grove 
formation. These are gently rolling hills dominantly on 5 to 30 percent 
slopes. The current Russian River Valley viticultural area does not 
encompass these hills; the proposed expansion area includes a portion 
of them.
    The northern portion of the proposed expansion area comprises the 
essentially flat Santa Rosa Plain. The plain is consistent with the 
portion of the current Russian River Valley viticultural area that 
wraps around both the west and north sides of the proposed expansion. 
Elevations in the proposed expansion area range from 715 feet down to 
75 feet above sea level. They are similar to those in adjoining areas 
of the current Russian River Valley viticultural area.
Soils and Geology
    The petitioner discusses the similarities between the soils of the 
proposed expansion area and those of the current viticultural area 
based on a soil association map (see ``Soil Survey of Sonoma County, 
California,'' online, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (https://
websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/)). The soils on the Merced Hills 
included in the proposed expansion area formed mainly in sandstone 
rocks of the underlying Wilson Grove formation. This formation is 
characterized by low lying, rolling hills beginning just south of the 
Russian River near Forestville, arching southeast through Sebastopol, 
and ending at Penngrove. It formed 3 to 5 million years ago under a 
shallow sea. According to the petitioner, the soils underlain by this 
formation are well suited to growing grapes in vineyards.
    The petitioner provides the following quotation discussing the 
suitability of the soils to growing grapes in the proposed expansion 
area:

    The sandy loam soils of the apple-growing region of Gold Ridge-
Sebastopol form as a direct result of breakdown of Wilson Grove 
rock. The low ridge running from Forestville to Sebastopol and south 
to Cotati is the classic terroir of this association, now being 
recognized as prime land and climate for Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. 
(``Diverse Geology/Soils Impact Wine Quality,'' by Terry Wright, 
Professor of Geology, Sonoma

[[Page 49127]]

State University, Practical Winery & Vineyard, September/October 
2001, Vol. XXIII, No. 2.)

    The petitioner notes that the Wilson Grove formation underlies the 
current Russian River Valley viticultural area, but the current 
southeastern border cuts north to south through the formation, midway 
between Sebastopol and Cotati. However, the soil associations on either 
side of the southeastern border of the current Russian River Valley 
viticultural area are identical. The Goldridge-Cotati-Sebastopol soil 
association is nearly continuous throughout the formation. The 
petitioner reports that areas of Sebastopol sandy loam are in the 
Laguna Ranch Vineyard just north of the town of Sebastopol (in the 
current viticultural area) and also in the Two Rock Ranch Vineyard in 
the proposed expansion area, just west of the town of Cotati.
    The petitioner states that the Clear Lake-Reyes association is in 
the portion of the proposed expansion area north of the Merced Hills. 
The soils in this association are poorly drained, nearly level to 
gently sloping clays and clay loams in basins. They are in the 
southeast portion of the Santa Rosa plain and also in pockets further 
north, almost directly west of the city of Santa Rosa. The Huichica-
Wright-Zamora association is further north in the proposed expansion 
area. The soils of this association are somewhat poorly drained to well 
drained, nearly level to strongly sloping loams to silty loams on low 
bench terraces and alluvial fans. They are common in the middle and 
northern portions of the Santa Rosa plain. They are predominant in the 
eastern portion of the current Russian River Valley viticultural area, 
including the city of Santa Rosa, and in the proposed expansion area.
    The petitioner notes that the ``Soil Survey of Sonoma County, 
California'' soil association map cited above shows that the current 
viticultural area boundary arbitrarily cuts directly through four major 
soil associations: Goldridge-Cotati-Sebastopol, Clear Lake-Reyes, 
Steinbeck-Los Osos, and Huichica-Wright-Zamora. The soils and the 
geology in the proposed expansion area are nearly identical to those in 
the adjacent areas of the current Russian River Valley viticultural 
area.
    TTB notes that T.D. ATF-159, which established the Russian River 
Valley viticultural area, does not identify any predominant soils or 
indicate any unique soils of the viticultural area.
Grape Brix Comparison
    The petitioner compares Brix for grapes grown in both the current 
viticultural area and the proposed expansion area. Brix is the quantity 
of dissolved solids in grape juice, expressed as grams of sucrose in 
100 grams of solution at 60 degrees Fahrenheit (see 27 CFR 24.10); 
thus, Brix is the percent of sugar by weight. Citing a brochure 
published by the Russian River Winegrowers Association, the petitioner 
notes that Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are the two most prominent grape 
varieties grown in the established Russian River Valley viticultural 
area. The successful cultivation of the Pinot Noir grape, in 
particular, has been considered a hallmark of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area, and the Pinot Gris grape variety recently has been 
growing in popularity.
    Data submitted with the petition shows the 4-year average Brix 
comparisons for the period 2003-6 for the Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, and 
Pinot Gris varieties among three vineyards in the current Russian River 
Valley viticultural area and the Two Rock Ranch Vineyard in the 
proposed expansion area (see table below). The petitioner asserts that 
the Brix levels for each variety at all of the vineyards are very 
similar, reflecting similar growing conditions for the grapes.

   2003-6 Average Brix for Some Winegrapes Grown on Ranches in the Current Viticultural Area and the Proposed
                                                Viticultural Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Average Brix
                              Ranch                              -----------------------------------------------
                                                                    Pinot Noir      Chardonnay      Pinot Gris
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laguna North....................................................           25.04           23.79  ..............
Del Rio.........................................................           26.69           23.24           24.68
MacMurray.......................................................           25.77  ..............           24.71
Two Rock*.......................................................           25.80           23.55           24.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Located in the proposed viticultural area.

    In addition to the petition evidence summarized above, the petition 
includes six letters of support from area grape growers and winery 
owners. The supporters generally state their belief that the proposed 
expansion area has the same grape growing conditions as the current 
Russian River Valley viticultural area. The petition also includes a 
``Petition of Support: Russian River Valley AVA Expansion'' with 208 
signatures.

Opposition to the Proposed Expansion

    Prior to and during review of the petition for the proposed 
expansion, TTB received by mail, facsimile transmission, and e-mail 
more than 50 pieces of correspondence opposing the petitioner's 
proposed expansion. The correspondence generally asserts that the 
proposed expansion area falls outside the coastal fog line and thus has 
a different climate than that of the current viticultural area. The 
opponents of the proposed expansion are mostly vineyard or winery 
owners from the current viticultural area. Several of them state that 
even though grapes grown in the proposed expansion area ``may 
eventually be brought to similar Brix, pH and total acidity maturity, 
the bloom and harvest dates are much later than in the Russian River 
Valley.'' TTB, while noting this opposing correspondence, also notes 
that the assertions in the correspondence were not accompanied by any 
specific data that contradicts the petitioner's submitted evidence.

Northern Sonoma Expansion

    TTB notes that the current boundaries of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area and of the Green Valley of Russian River Valley 
viticultural area (which lies entirely within the Russian River Valley 
area) extend beyond the Northern Sonoma viticultural area boundary to 
the south and southeast; in the case of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area, this was as a result of the 30,200-acre, 2005 
expansion approved in T.D. TTB-32. The currently proposed 14,044-acre 
expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area similarly is 
outside the boundary line of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area.
    TTB also proposes in this document a southern and southeastern 
expansion

[[Page 49128]]

of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area boundary line to encompass all 
of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, including the currently 
proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, so 
that all of the Russian River Valley viticultural area would again fall 
within the Northern Sonoma viticultural area, as was the case prior to 
the 2005 expansion. The Northern Sonoma viticultural area would 
increase in size by 44,244 acres to 394,088 acres, or by 9 percent. The 
following information is provided in support of this proposed 
expansion.

Name and Boundary Evidence

    The Northern Sonoma viticultural area was established on May 17, 
1985, by T.D. ATF-204 (50 FR 20560), which stated at 50 FR 20562:

    * * * Six approved viticultural areas are located entirely 
within the Northern Sonoma viticultural area as follows: Chalk Hill, 
Alexander Valley, Sonoma County Green Valley [subsequently renamed 
Green Valley of Russian River Valley], Dry Creek Valley, Russian 
River Valley, and Knights Valley.
    The Sonoma County Green Valley and Chalk Hill areas are each 
entirely within the Russian River Valley area. The boundaries of the 
Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley, Russian River Valley, and 
Knights Valley areas all fit perfectly together dividing northern 
Sonoma County into four large areas. The Northern Sonoma area uses 
all of the outer boundaries of those four areas with the exception 
of an area southwest of the Dry Creek Valley area and west of the 
Russian River Valley area.

    The originally established Northern Sonoma viticultural area was 
expanded by T.D. ATF-233, published in the Federal Register on August 
26, 1986 (51 FR 30352) and, again, by T.D. ATF-300, published in the 
Federal Register on August 9, 1990 (55 FR 32400).
    The current southern portion of the boundary line of the Northern 
Sonoma viticultural area, west to east, follows California State 
Highway 12 from its intersection with Bohemian Highway, through the 
town of Sebastopol, to its intersection with Fulton Road. Although T.D. 
ATF-204 does not explain the basis for the choice of California State 
Highway 12 as the southern portion of the Northern Sonoma boundary 
line, TTB notes that at that time California State Highway 12 also 
formed the southern portion of the boundary line of the Russian River 
Valley viticultural area.
    T.D. ATF-204 included information regarding the geographical 
meaning of ``Northern Sonoma'' as distinct from the rest of Sonoma 
County. Although a Web search conducted by TTB failed to disclose 
conclusive information regarding current nonviticultural usage of 
``Northern Sonoma'' as a geographical term, a Web search for ``Southern 
Sonoma County'' did disclose specific geographical data. The Southern 
Sonoma County Resource Conservation District (SCC-RCD) Web site has 
Sonoma County maps and describes the district as including the 
``southern slopes of Mecham Hill'' (alternative spelling of 
``Meacham,'' as on the USGS map), as the northern portion of the 
Petaluma River watershed in southern Sonoma County. Meacham Hill, 
according to the USGS Cotati map, lies 1.25 miles southeast of the area 
included in the expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area 
proposed in this document. Further, the SCC-RCD maps show that the 
southern Sonoma County watershed excludes the Gold Ridge District, 
which comprises much of the Russian River watershed, including the 
Russian River Valley viticultural area and the area proposed in this 
document to be added to it.
    Sonoma County Relocation, a real estate service, defines southern 
Sonoma County as extending south from the town of Penngrove. According 
to the USGS Cotati map, Penngrove lies 2.4 miles east-southeast of the 
proposed expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area boundary 
line. The City of Petaluma, the southernmost large population center in 
Sonoma County, lies 6 miles southeast of the proposed expansion to the 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area.
    Based on the above, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that 
the name ``Northern Sonoma'', as distinct from southern Sonoma County, 
includes all of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, including 
the proposed expansion of that area that is the subject of this 
document.

Distinguishing Features

    According to the USGS Sonoma County topographical map, the 
topography of the area that would be included in the proposed expansion 
of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area has only a few gently rolling 
hills and ridges in the large region known as ``Cotati Valley.'' The 
topography of the expansion area mirrors the valley terrain that is to 
its north and that is within the original boundary line.

TTB Determinations

    TTB concludes that the petition to expand the 155,024-acre Russian 
River Valley viticultural area by 14,044 acres merits consideration and 
public comment, as invited in this notice. TTB also concludes that the 
expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area to conform its 
southern and southeastern boundary line to that of the expanded Russian 
River Valley viticultural area merits consideration and public comment.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for 
expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area and the TTB-
proposed expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area in the 
proposed Sec.  9.66 and Sec.  9.70 regulatory text amendments published 
at the end of this notice.

Maps

    The petitioner provided the required map to document the proposed 
expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, and we list it 
below in the proposed Sec.  9.66 regulatory text amendment. TTB relied 
on maps provided for the 2005 expansion of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area and the map provided by the petitioner for the 
current expansion to document the boundary description for the proposed 
expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area. A revised and 
expanded list of maps is included in the proposed Sec.  9.70 regulatory 
text amendment.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

    The proposed expansions of the Russian River Valley and Northern 
Sonoma viticultural areas will not affect currently approved wine 
labels. The approval of this proposed expansion may allow additional 
vintners to use ``Russian River Valley'' or ``Northern Sonoma'' 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 eligible to use a viticultural area name as an appellation 
of origin or a term of viticultural significance in a brand name, at 
least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within 
the area represented by that name or 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 Russian River Valley viticultural area as 
described above. We

[[Page 49129]]

specifically request comment on the similarity of the proposed 
expansion area to the current Russian River Valley viticultural area. 
In particular, we would like comments on the climate of the proposed 
Russian River Valley viticultural area expansion area as compared to 
that of the current viticultural area and on the placement of the 
boundary lines for the proposed expansion.
    We also invite comments on the proposed expansion to the Northern 
Sonoma viticultural area as described in this document. Specifically, 
we are interested in comments that address this proposed expansion as 
it relates to the 2005 expansion and to the current proposed expansion 
of the Russian River Valley viticultural area.
    Whether in favor of, or in opposition to, either of the proposed 
expansions, you should support any comments made with specific data or 
other appropriate information about the name, proposed boundaries, or 
distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the 
following two methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the 
online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2008-
0009 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http:/
/www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under 
Notice No. 90 on the TTB Web site at 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 ``User Guide'' under ``How 
to Use this Site.''
     U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the 
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this 
notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 90 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. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider 
all comments as originals.
    If you are commenting on behalf of an association, business, or 
other 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, 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

    We will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected 
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments we receive 
about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2008-0009 on the Federal e-
rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at https://www.regulations.gov. A 
direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at https://
www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 90. You may 
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page 
at https://www.regulations.gov. For instructions on how to use 
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on ``User Guide'' under ``How 
to Use this Site.''
    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 e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous 
attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting.
    You also may view copies of this notice, all related petitions, 
maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed 
comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB 
Information Resource Center, 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 or 
other materials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify 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

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as 
defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory 
assessment.

Drafting Information

    Jennifer Berry drafted this notice. Other staff members of the 
Regulations and Rulings Division contributed to the notice.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment

    For reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 
27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

    2. Section 9.66 is amended:
    a. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``and'' at the end of 
paragraph (b)(9), by removing the word ``, and'' at the end of 
paragraph (b)(10) and adding, in its place, a semicolon, by removing 
the period at the end of paragraph (b)(11) and adding, in its place, 
the word ``and'' preceded by a semicolon, and by adding a new paragraph 
(b)(12); and
    b. In paragraph (c), by revising paragraphs (c)(15) through 
(c)(19), by redesignating paragraphs (c)(20) through (c)(34) as 
paragraphs (c)(26) through (c)(40), and by adding new paragraphs 
(c)(20) through (c)(25).
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  9.66  Russian River Valley.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (12) Cotati Quadrangle, California--Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 
1954, Photorevised 1980.
    (c ) * * *
    (15) Proceed southeast 0.5 mile, crossing over the end of an 
unnamed,

[[Page 49130]]

unimproved dirt road to an unnamed 524-foot elevation peak, T6N, R8W, 
on the Two Rock map.
    (16) Proceed southeast 0.75 mile in a straight line to the 
intersection of an unnamed unimproved dirt road (leading to four barn-
like structures) and an unnamed medium-duty road (known locally as 
Roblar Road), T6N, R8W, on the Two Rock map.
    (17) Proceed south 0.5 mile to an unnamed 678-foot elevation peak 
just slightly north of the intersection of T5N and T6N, R8W, on the Two 
Rock map.
    (18) Proceed east-southeast 0.8 mile to an unnamed peak with a 599-
foot elevation, T5N, R8W, on the Two Rock map.
    (19) Proceed east-southeast 0.7 mile to an unnamed peak with a 604-
foot elevation, T5N, R8W, on the Two Rock map.
    (20) Proceed east-southeast 0.9 mile to the intersection of a 
short, unnamed light-duty road leading past a group of barn-like 
structures and a medium duty road known locally as Meacham Road, and 
cross onto the Cotati map T5N, R8W.
    (21) Proceed north-northeast 0.75 mile to the intersection of 
Meacham and Stony Point Roads, T5N, R8W, on the Cotati map.
    (22) Proceed southeast 1.1 miles along Stony Point Road to the 
point where the 200-foot elevation contour line intersects Stony Point 
Road, T5N, R8W, on the Cotati map.
    (23) Proceed north-northeast 0.5 mile to the point where an unnamed 
intermittent stream intersects U.S. 101 (and to the point where the 
land grant line also crosses), T5N, R8W, on the Cotati map.
    (24) Proceed north 4.25 miles along U.S. 101 to the point where 
Santa Rosa Avenue exits U.S. 101 (approximately 0.5 mile north of the 
Wilfred Avenue overpass) T6N, R8W, on the Cotati map.
    (25) Proceed north 1.1 miles along Santa Rosa Avenue to its 
intersection with Todd Road, crossing onto the Santa Rosa map, T6N, 
R8W, on the Santa Rosa map.
* * * * *
    3. Section 9.70 is amended:
    a. By revising paragraph (b); and
    b. In paragraph (c), by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5), by redesignating paragraphs (c)(6) 
through (c)(26) as paragraphs (c)(23) through (c)(43), and by adding 
new paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(22).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  9.70  Northern Sonoma.

* * * * *
    (b) Approved Maps. The nine United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
maps used to determine the boundary of the Northern Sonoma viticultural 
area are titled:
    (1) Sonoma County, California, scale 1:100 000, 1970;
    (2) Asti Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24 000, 1959, Photorevised 
1978;
    (3) Jimtown Quadrangle, California--Sonoma County; scale 1:24 000, 
1955, Photorevised 1975;
    (4) Camp Meeker Quadrangle, California--Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 
1954, Photorevised 1971;
    (5) Valley Ford Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24 000, 1954, 
Photorevised 1971;
    (6) Two Rock Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24 000, 1954, 
Photorevised 1971;
    (7) Cotati Quadrangle, California--Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 
1954, Photorevised 1980;
    (8) Santa Rosa Quadrangle, California--Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 
1954, Photorevised 1980; and
    (9) Mark West Springs Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24 000, 1993.
    (c) Boundary. The Northern Sonoma viticultural area is located in 
Sonoma County, California. The boundary description includes (in 
parentheses) the local names of roads that are not identified by name 
on the map.
    (1) The beginning point is on the USGS Sonoma County, California, 
map in the town of Monte Rio at the intersection of the Russian River 
and a secondary highway (Bohemian Highway);
    (2) The boundary follows this secondary highway (Bohemian Highway), 
southeasterly parallel to Dutch Bill Creek, through the towns of Camp 
Meeker, Occidental, and Freestone, and then northeasterly to its 
intersection with an unnamed secondary highway, known locally as Bodega 
Road (also designated as State Highway 12), at BM 214, as shown on the 
Valley Ford Quadrangle map.
    (3) The boundary follows Bodega Road (State Highway 12) 
northeasterly 0.9 miles on the Valley Ford map; then onto the Camp 
Meeker map to its intersection, at BM 486, with Jonive Road to the 
north and an unnamed light duty road to the south (Barnett Valley 
Road), T6N, R9W, on the Camp Meeker map.
    (4) The boundary follows Barnett Valley Road south 2.2 miles, then 
east crossing over the Valley Ford map and onto the Two Rock map, to 
its intersection with Burnside Road, section 17, T6N, R9W.
    (5) The boundary follows Burnside Road southeast 3.3 miles to its 
intersection with an unnamed medium duty road at BM 375, T6N, R9W.
    (6) The boundary follows a straight line southeast 0.6 mile to an 
unnamed 610-foot elevation peak, 1.5 miles southwest of Canfield 
School, T6N, R9W.
    (7) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.75 mile 
to an unnamed 641-foot elevation peak 1.4 miles south-southwest of 
Canfield School, T6N, R9W.
    (8) The boundary follows a straight line northeast 0.85 mile to its 
intersection with an unnamed intermittent stream and Canfield Road; 
then continues on the straight line northeast 0.3 mile to its 
intersection with the common Ranges 8 and 9 line, just west of an 
unnamed unimproved dirt road, T6N.
    (9) The boundary follows a straight line southeast 0.5 mile, 
crossing over the end of an unnamed, unimproved dirt road to an unnamed 
524-foot elevation peak, T6N, R8W.
    (10) The boundary follows a straight line southeast 0.75 mile to 
the intersection of an unnamed unimproved dirt road (leading to four 
barn-like structures) and an unnamed medium-duty road (known locally as 
Roblar Road), T6N, R8W.
    (11) The boundary follows a straight line south 0.5 mile to an 
unnamed 678-foot elevation peak, T6N, R8W.
    (12) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.8 mile 
to an unnamed peak with a 599-foot elevation, T5N, R8W.
    (13) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.7 mile 
to an unnamed peak with a 604-foot elevation, T5N, R8W.
    (14) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.9 mile, 
onto the Cotati map, to the intersection of a short, unnamed light-duty 
road leading past a group of barn-like structures and a medium duty 
road known locally as Meacham Road, T5N, R8W.
    (15) The boundary follows Meacham Road north-northeast 0.75 mile to 
its intersection with Stony Point Road, T5N, R8W.
    (16) The boundary follows Stony Point Road southeast 1.1 miles to 
the point where the 200-foot elevation contour line intersects Stony 
Point Road, T5N, R8W.
    (17) The boundary follows a straight line north-northeast 0.5 mile 
to the point where an unnamed intermittent stream intersects U.S. 101 
(and to the point where the Roblar de la Miseria land grant line 
crosses), T5N, R8W.
    (18) The boundary follows U.S. Route 101 north 4.25 miles to the 
point where Santa Rosa Avenue exits U.S. Route 101

[[Page 49131]]

to the east (approximately 0.5 mile north of the Wilfred Avenue 
overpass) T6N, R8W.
    (19) The boundary follows Santa Rosa Avenue north 1.1 miles to its 
intersection with Todd Road, crossing on to the Santa Rosa map, T6N, 
R8W.
    (20) The boundary follows Santa Rosa Avenue generally north 5.8 
miles, eventually becoming Mendocino Avenue, to its intersection with 
an unnamed secondary road, locally known as Bicentennial Way, 0.3 mile 
north-northwest of BM 161 on Mendocino Avenue, section 11, T7N, R8W.
    (21) The boundary follows a straight line north 2.5 miles crossing 
over the 906-foot elevation peak in section 35, T8N, R8W, crossing onto 
the Mark West Springs map, to its intersection with Mark West Springs 
Road and the meandering 280-foot elevation line in section 26, T6N, 
R8W.
    (22) The boundary follows the unnamed secondary highway, Mark West 
Springs Road, on the Sonoma County map, generally north and east, 
eventually turning into Porter Road and then to Petrified Forest Road, 
passing BM 545, the town of Mark West Springs, BM 495, and the 
Petrified Forest area, to its intersection with the Sonoma County-Napa 
County line.
* * * * *

    Signed: August 13, 2008.
Vicky McDowell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-19327 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P