Proposed Establishment of the Fountaingrove District Viticultural Area, 36683-36689 [2014-15212]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch,
ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: (425) 917–
6482; fax: (425) 917–6590; email:
georgios.roussos@faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–
544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 19,
2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–15247 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Background on Viticultural Areas
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB–2014–0006; Notice No.
144]
RIN 1513–AC09
Proposed Establishment of the
Fountaingrove District Viticultural Area
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
establish the approximately 38,000-acre
‘‘Fountaingrove District’’ viticultural
area in Sonoma County, California. The
proposed viticultural area lies entirely
within the larger, multicounty North
Coast viticultural area. TTB designates
viticultural areas to allow vintners to
better describe the origin of their wines
and to allow consumers to better
identify wines they may purchase. TTB
invites comments on this proposed
addition to its regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received by
August 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Please send your comments
on this notice to one of the following
addresses (please note that TTB has a
new address for comments submitted by
U.S. mail):
• Internet: https://www.regulations.gov
(via the online comment form for this
notice as posted within Docket No.
TTB–2014–0006 at ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’
the Federal e-rulemaking portal);
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
• U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street
NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or
• Hand delivery/courier in lieu of
mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite
200–E, Washington, DC 20005.
See the Public Participation section of
this notice for specific instructions and
requirements for submitting comments,
and for information on how to request
a public hearing or obtain or review
copies of the petition and supporting
materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street
NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005;
phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jkt 232001
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (FAA Act), 27
U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to prescribe regulations
for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits,
and malt beverages. The FAA Act
provides that these regulations should,
among other things, prohibit consumer
deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels and ensure that
labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity
and quality of the product. The Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The
Secretary has delegated various
authorities through Treasury
Department Order 120–01 (Revised),
dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB
Administrator to perform the functions
and duties in the administration and
enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
part 4) authorizes the establishment of
definitive viticultural areas and the use
of their names as appellations of origin
on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth
standards for the preparation and
submission to TTB of petitions for the
establishment or modification of
American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines
a viticultural area for American wine as
a delimited grape-growing region having
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36683
distinguishing features as described in
part 9 of the regulations and a name and
a delineated boundary as established in
part 9 of the regulations. These
designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality,
reputation, or other characteristic of a
wine made from grapes grown in an area
to the wine’s geographic origin. The
establishment of AVAs allows vintners
to describe more accurately the origin of
their wines to consumers and helps
consumers to identify wines they may
purchase. Establishment of an AVA is
neither an approval nor an endorsement
by TTB of the wine produced in that
area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations outlines the procedure for
proposing the establishment of an AVA
and provides that any interested party
may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as an AVA. Section 9.12
of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12)
prescribes the standards for petitions
requesting the establishment or
modification of AVAs. Petitions to
establish an AVA must include the
following:
• Evidence that the region within the
proposed AVA boundary is nationally
or locally known by the AVA name
specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for
defining the boundary of the proposed
AVA;
• A narrative description of the
features of the proposed AVA that affect
viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation,
that make the proposed AVA distinctive
and distinguish it from adjacent areas
outside the proposed AVA;
• The appropriate United States
Geological Survey (USGS) map(s)
showing the location of the proposed
AVA, with the boundary of the
proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon;
and
• A detailed narrative description of
the proposed AVA boundary based on
USGS map markings.
Fountaingrove District Petition
TTB received a petition from Douglas
Grigg of Walnut Hill Vineyards, LLC, on
behalf of the Fountaingrove Appellation
Committee, proposing the establishment
of the ‘‘Fountaingrove District’’ AVA in
Sonoma County, California. The
committee originally proposed the name
‘‘Fountaingrove’’ but later requested to
change the name to ‘‘Fountaingrove
District’’ in order to avoid affecting
current use of the word
‘‘Fountaingrove,’’ standing alone, in
brand names on wine labels. The
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36684
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
proposed AVA contains approximately
38,000 acres and has approximately 35
commercially-producing vineyards
covering a total of 500 acres. Cabernet
sauvignon, chardonnay, sauvignon
blanc, merlot, cabernet franc, zinfandel,
syrah, and viognier are the primary
grape varieties grown within the
proposed AVA. According to the
petition, the distinguishing features of
the proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA include temperature, soils, and
topography. Unless otherwise noted, all
information and data pertaining to the
proposed AVA contained in this
document are from the petition for the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA is located in Sonoma County,
California, northeast of the city of Santa
Rosa. The proposed AVA lies within the
larger, multicounty North Coast AVA
(27 CFR 9.30). The proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA shares its
boundaries with the established Russian
River Valley (27 CFR 9.66), Chalk Hill
(27 CFR 9.52), Knights Valley (27 CFR
9.76), Calistoga (27 CFR 9.209),
Diamond Mountain District (27 CFR
9.166), Spring Mountain District (27
CFR 9.143), and Sonoma Valley (27 CFR
9.29) AVAs, but does not overlap any of
these AVAs. As it was originally
submitted, the petition first proposed a
western boundary that slightly
overlapped the established Russian
River Valley AVA, but after discussions
with TTB, the petitioner adjusted the
proposed boundary to follow the
established Russian River Valley AVA
boundary because the original proposed
boundary would have resulted in
dividing at least one existing vineyard
between Russian River Valley AVA and
the proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA.
Name Evidence
The proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA derives its name from the historic
community of Fountain Grove, a
utopian colony founded northeast of the
city of Santa Rosa in 1875 by Thomas
Lake Harris. The community included
400 acres of vineyards and a winery. By
1882, the winery was producing 70,000
gallons of wine per year, making it one
of the 10 largest wineries in California
at that time.
In 1880, Harris appointed his
California lieutenant, Kanaye Nagasawa,
to take charge of the vineyard and
winery operations and act as developer
and manager of the community’s 2,000
acres of vineyards. In 1900, Harris sold
his interest in the vineyards and winery
to Nagasawa and five other members of
the commune, and by 1908, Nagasawa
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
was the sole surviving owner of the
Fountain Grove vineyards and winery.
During Prohibition, he kept the
vineyards and winery facilities
productive by producing grape juice and
cooking sherry. After Prohibition was
repealed in 1933, Nagasawa changed the
name of the winery and the community
to ‘‘Fountaingrove.’’ Nagasawa died in
1934, and the property was eventually
sold and turned into a cattle ranch.
Although the original community no
longer exists and the original
Fountaingrove Winery remains only as
a few abandoned buildings, the name
‘‘Fountaingrove’’ is still associated with
the region of the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA. The
petition notes that several modern
subdivisions within the proposed AVA
bear the ‘‘Fountaingrove’’ name,
including Fountaingrove Ranch,
Fountaingrove Village, Fountaingrove II,
and the Meadows at Fountaingrove,
which are all built on portions of the
original Fountaingrove community and
vineyards. Fountaingrove Parkway is a
road that runs through the southwestern
portion of the proposed AVA.
Fountaingrove Lake is a large reservoir
within the proposed AVA. Finally, the
petition listed several businesses within
the proposed AVA that use the name
‘‘Fountaingrove,’’ including
Fountaingrove Inn Hotel and
Conference Center, Fountaingrove
Lodge Retirement Community,
Fountaingrove Golf and Athletic Club,
Fountaingrove Realty, Fountaingrove
MedSpa, Fountaingrove Dentistry,
Fountaingrove Deli, and Fountaingrove
Cleaners.
Boundary Evidence
The proposed AVA is a region of
rolling hills and steeper mountains with
elevations that range from
approximately 400 feet near the city of
Santa Rosa, at the southwestern
boundary of the proposed AVA, to
approximately 2,200 feet in the eastern
portion of the proposed AVA, near the
Sonoma-Napa County line.
The proposed boundary follows a
series of elevation contours, roads,
county lines, USGS map section lines,
and straight lines between points
marked on the relevant USGS maps. The
northern portion of the proposed
boundary is shared with the southern
boundaries of the established Knights
Valley and Chalk Hill AVAs. The
eastern portion of the proposed
boundary is formed by a ridgeline in the
Mayacmas Mountains that forms the
Sonoma-Napa County line. This portion
of the proposed boundary is shared with
the established Calistoga, Diamond
Mountain District, and Spring Mountain
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
District AVAs. Part of the southern
portion of the proposed boundary is
shared with the established Sonoma
Valley AVA. The remainder of the
proposed southern boundary separates
the hills and mountains of the proposed
AVA from the flat, urbanized terrain of
the city of Santa Rosa. The western
portion of the proposed boundary is
shared with the established Russian
River Valley AVA. The differences
between the proposed Fountaingrove
District AVA and the adjacent
established AVAs are discussed below.
Distinguishing Features
The distinguishing features of the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
include its temperature, soils, and
topography, and these are discussed in
detail below.
Temperature
The temperature of the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA is
moderated by cool breezes from the
Pacific Ocean. The breezes enter the
region through a gap in the Sonoma
Mountains between Taylor Mountain
(located south of the city of Santa Rosa)
and Redwood Hill (located north of the
city). Because of the marine influence,
the median growing season temperature
within the proposed AVA is 63.9
degrees Fahrenheit. The petition
provided the growing degree day units
(GDD units),1 calculated in degrees
Celsius (C), for 16 vineyards distributed
throughout the proposed AVA, and the
petitioner determined the median
number of GDD units for the entire
proposed AVA was 1,663.2 According to
the Winkler scale, this figure places the
proposed AVA in the Warm Region II
category.
The following table was included in
the petition and compares the median
1 In the Winkler climate classification system,
annual heat accumulation during the growing
season, measured in annual GDD, defines climatic
regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree
Fahrenheit that a day’s mean temperature is above
50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), the
minimum temperature required for grapevine
growth. For temperatures measured in degrees
Celsius, the GDD ranges are defined as Region I, for
fewer than 1,388 GDD units, Region II from 1,388–
1,667 GDD units, Region III for 1,667–1,944 GDD
units, Region IV for 1,944–2,222 GDD units, and
Region V for more than 2,222 GDD units (See Albert
J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkley: University
of California Press, 1974), 61–64).
2 The GDD data was derived from 1971–2000
climate normals using the data mapping system of
the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State
University. The PRISM mapping system combined
climate normals gathered from weather stations to
estimate the general climate patterns for the
proposed AVA and the surrounding regions.
Climate normals are only calculated every 10 years,
using 30 years of data, and at the time the petition
was submitted, the most recent climate normals
available were from the period of 1971–2000.
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
growing season temperatures and GDD
units of the proposed Fountaingrove
District AVA to those of the surrounding
established AVAs.
Average
growing
season
temperature
(Celsius)
AVA name
Direction from proposed AVA
Fountaingrove District ...................................
Russian River Valley .....................................
Bennett Valley ...............................................
Chalk Hill .......................................................
Sonoma Valley ..............................................
Knights Valley ...............................................
Spring Mountain District ................................
Diamond Mountain District ............................
N/A ................................................................
West .............................................................
Southwest .....................................................
North .............................................................
South ............................................................
North .............................................................
East ..............................................................
East ..............................................................
According to the table, the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA is generally
warmer than the region to the west and
cooler than the region to the east. The
temperatures within the Chalk Hill
AVA, which is north of the proposed
AVA, are similar to those in the
Fountaingrove District; however, the
Knights Valley AVA, which is also
north of the proposed AVA, has
significantly more GDD units than the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
because the higher hillsides of the
Knights Valley AVA shelter its broad
valley floor from the marine breezes.
The Sonoma Valley AVA, immediately
adjacent to the southern boundary of the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA,
is slightly warmer.
The petition states that although the
temperature differences between the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
and the surrounding regions appear
slight, they do have a significant effect
on viticulture. The petition includes a
chart grouping grape varietals by
maturation times based on average
growing season temperatures.3
According to the chart, most varietals
only ripen successfully (meaning they
achieve desired levels of acidity, sugars,
36685
and flavors) within a 3-to-4 degree C
range of temperatures. As a result, coolclimate pinot noir grapes ripen
successfully in the cooler temperatures
of the neighboring Russian River Valley
AVA, but do not grow reliably within
the proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA, according to the petition.
The petition notes that even the same
varietal of grapes grown at opposite
ends of the small range of ‘‘optimal’’
temperatures will have different
characteristics. For example, the
petition states that chardonnay grown in
a Warm Region II area, such as the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA,
will have a tropical fruit flavor, whereas
chardonnay grown in a cooler area will
produce a drier, more mineral-like
flavor. Likewise, cabernet sauvignon,
one of the most commonly grown grapes
in the proposed AVA, produces a lower
alcohol wine with subtle flavors when
grown in a Warm Region II area, but
often produces wines with higher
alcohol content and riper flavors when
grown in Region III and Region IV areas.
Vintners consider these flavor and
alcohol differences when producing and
blending their wines.
Average GDD
unit
accumulation
Winkler category
1,663
1,520
1,589
1,634
1,676
1,788
1,785
1,818
Warm Region II.
Region II.
Region II.
Warm Region II.
Cool Region III.
Region III.
Region III.
Region III.
17.7
17.1
17.4
17.6
17.8
18.3
18.3
18.7
Soils
The soils within the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA are derived
primarily from Sonoma Volcanic and
Franciscan Formation bedrock. The
volcanic soils include Goulding,
Spreckels, Laniger, and Felta series
soils, which consist of pumiceous ashflow tuff, and Guenoc and Toomes
series soils, which consist of basalt lava.
These volcanic soils are described in the
petition as being well-drained and
having a balance of nutrients favorable
for grape-growing. Soils derived from
the Franciscan Complex include the
Boomer and Henneke series. Henneke
soils contain the mineral serpentine,
which has high levels of nickel and can
be toxic to grapevines unless the soil is
ameliorated to lower the levels. Soils of
the Boomer series have desirably high
levels of iron, which is an essential
element for vine growth and fruit
development.
The following table shows the soil
types found within the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA and the
surrounding established AVAs.
AVA name and direction from proposed AVA
Soil series
Chalk Hill
(North)
Russian
River Valley
(West)
Sonoma
Valley
(South)
Knights
Valley
(North)
Diamond
Mountain
District
(East)
Spring
Mountain
District
(East)
Proposed
Fountaingrove
District
X
X
....................
X
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
X
X
............................
X
X
X
............................
X
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Sonoma Volcanics
Goulding ...........................................
Laniger .............................................
Felta .................................................
Forward ............................................
Spreckels .........................................
Toomes ............................................
Guenoc .............................................
Kidd ..................................................
Sobrante ...........................................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
3 Gregory V. Jones et al., ‘‘Climate and Wine:
Quality Issues in a Warmer World,’’ Climate
Change, pages 319–343, December 1, 2005.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36686
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
AVA name and direction from proposed AVA
Soil series
Chalk Hill
(North)
Russian
River Valley
(West)
Sonoma
Valley
(South)
Knights
Valley
(North)
Diamond
Mountain
District
(East)
Spring
Mountain
District
(East)
Proposed
Fountaingrove
District
Hambright .........................................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
............................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
............................
X
............................
X
X
............................
X
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
X
............................
X
............................
X
............................
............................
....................
....................
............................
Franciscan Complex
Dibble ...............................................
Maymen ...........................................
Laughlin ............................................
Boomer .............................................
Aiken ................................................
Red Hill ............................................
Suther ...............................................
Yorkville * ..........................................
Henneke * .........................................
Raynor * ............................................
Montara * ..........................................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
....................
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
River and Terrace Deposits
Cotati ................................................
Wright ...............................................
Clear Lake ........................................
Arbuckle ...........................................
Huichica ...........................................
Yolo ..................................................
Zamora .............................................
Pleasanton .......................................
Cortina ..............................................
Haire .................................................
Clough ..............................................
Positas .............................................
....................
....................
....................
X
X
X
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
....................
....................
X
....................
X
....................
X
X
....................
X
....................
X
....................
....................
X
X
....................
....................
....................
....................
X
....................
X
....................
....................
X
X
X
....................
Wilson Grove Formation
Goldridge ..........................................
....................
X
....................
....................
* Indicates soil contains serpentine.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
As shown in the table, the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA has a
greater diversity of soils than the
surrounding AVAs. The proposed AVA
has fewer soils derived from river and
terrace deposits than most of the
surrounding established AVAs. The
petition states that soils comprised of
river and terrace deposits are generally
not as well-drained as volcanic soils and
may require artificial drainage.
Compared to the surrounding regions,
the proposed AVA also has more soils
that contain nickel-rich serpentine,
which can be toxic to grapevines in high
levels. Therefore, soils that contain
serpentine must often be ameliorated in
order to reduce the nickel levels so that
the vines can grow.
Topography
The proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA is located on the western slopes of
the Mayacmas Mountains, northeast of
the city of Santa Rosa. The topography
consists of low rolling hills and higher,
steeper mountains. Although there are
some narrow floodplains along creeks,
the proposed AVA lacks the broad
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
valley floors and floodplains that
characterize several of the surrounding
established AVAs. The slopes within
the proposed AVA are primarily
oriented towards the southwest.
Elevations range from approximately
400 feet to approximately 2,200 feet,
and all of the vineyards within the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
are planted at elevations between 450
and 2,115 feet.
Topography affects viticulture within
the proposed AVA. According to the
petition, the hillsides form a ‘‘thermal
belt’’ that traps warm air, resulting in
nighttime temperatures that are warmer
than those of the lower, flatter valleys of
the surrounding regions. The warmer
temperatures reduce the risk of frost in
the late spring and early fall. The
southwest aspect of most of the slopes
within the proposed AVA allows
vineyards to be planted where they can
receive the maximum amount of
sunlight and warmth.
Immediately to the west of the
proposed AVA is the Russian River
Valley AVA. Elevations in the region
begin at approximately 600 feet along
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the border shared with the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA and become
lower and flatter southwest of the
proposed AVA, within the city of Santa
Rosa. Elevations within much of the city
are between 100 and 200 feet.
To the north of the proposed AVA are
the Chalk Hill and Knights Valley
AVAs. The Chalk Hill AVA has a
mountainous terrain with elevations
similar to those of the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA, but the
soils within the Chalk Hill AVA
distinguish it from the proposed AVA,
as discussed later in this document. The
Knights Valley AVA has generally lower
elevations and contains the broad, flat
Knights Valley and Franz Valley.
To the east of the proposed AVA are
the Calistoga, Spring Mountain District,
and Diamond Mountain District AVAs,
which have elevations and terrain
similar to the proposed AVA. However,
moving east, the mountainous
topography of the Calistoga AVA
quickly lowers to elevations of around
300 feet within the broad, flat Napa
Valley. The slopes of the three
established AVAs primarily face
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
northeast, compared to the southwestfacing slopes of the proposed AVA.
Because the established AVAs are
located mostly on the lee side of the
Mayacmas Mountains, they are subject
to less maritime influence than the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA.
To the south of the proposed AVA,
the Sonoma Valley AVA is marked by
a long, flat valley surrounded by the
Mayacmas Mountains to the east and
the Sonoma Mountains to the west. The
Sonoma Valley AVA receives less of the
cooling marine air than the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA because of
the shielding effect of the Sonoma
Mountains.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Distinguishing Features
In summary, the temperature, soils,
and topography of the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA distinguish
it from the surrounding adjacent AVAs.
Compared to the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA, the Chalk
Hill and Knights Valley AVAs to the
north both have more soils derived from
river and terrace deposits. Additionally,
the Knights Valley AVA has warmer
temperatures and significantly larger
valleys than the proposed AVA. To the
east, the Calistoga, Spring Mountain
District, and Diamond Mountain District
AVAs are warmer, have less soil
diversity, and have mountain slopes
oriented to the northeast. To the south,
the Sonoma Valley AVA is warmer, has
more alluvial soils, and is dominated by
a large, flat valley rather than rolling
hills and steeper mountains. To the
west, the Russian River Valley AVA has
cooler temperatures, more alluvial soils,
and generally lower and flatter
elevations.
Comparison of the Proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA to the
Existing North Coast AVA
The North Coast AVA was established
by T.D. ATF–145, published in the
Federal Register on September 21, 1983
(48 FR 42973). It includes all or portions
of Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake,
Marin, and Solano Counties, California.
TTB notes that the North Coast AVA
contains all or portions of
approximately 40 established AVAs, in
addition to the area covered by the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA.
In the conclusion of the ‘‘Geographical
Features’’ section of the preamble, T.D.
ATF–145 states that ‘‘[d]ue to the
enormous size of the North Coast,
variations exist in climatic features such
as temperature, rainfall, and fog
intrusion.’’
The proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA shares the basic viticultural feature
of the North Coast AVA––the marine
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
influence that moderates growing
season temperatures in the area.
However, the proposed AVA is much
more uniform in its temperature, soils,
and topography than the diverse,
multicounty North Coast AVA. In this
regard, TTB notes that T.D. ATF–145
specifically states that ‘‘approval of this
viticultural area does not preclude
approval of additional areas, either
wholly contained with the North Coast,
or partially overlapping the North
Coast,’’ and that ‘‘smaller viticultural
areas tend to be more uniform in their
geographical and climatic
characteristics, while very large areas
such as the North Coast tend to exhibit
generally similar characteristics, in this
case the influence of maritime air off of
the Pacific Ocean and San Pablo Bay.’’
Thus, the proposal to establish the
Fountaingrove District AVA is not
inconsistent with what was envisioned
when the North Coast AVA was
established.
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to
establish the approximately 38,000-acre
Fountaingrove District AVA merits
consideration and public comment, as
invited in this notice.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of
boundary for the petitioned-for AVA in
the proposed regulatory text published
at the end of this proposed rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required
maps, and they are listed below in the
proposed regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits
any label reference on a wine that
indicates or implies an origin other than
the wine’s true place of origin. For a
wine to be labeled with an AVA name
or with a brand name that includes an
AVA name, at least 85 percent of the
wine must be derived from grapes
grown within the area represented by
that name, and the wine must meet the
other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of
the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)).
If the wine is not eligible for labeling
with an AVA name and that name
appears in the brand name, then the
label is not in compliance, and the
bottler must change the brand name and
obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the AVA name appears in
another reference on the label in a
misleading manner, the bottler would
have to obtain approval of a new label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a
brand name containing an AVA name
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36687
that was used as a brand name on a
label approved before July 7, 1986. See
§ 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27
CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA,
its name, ‘‘Fountaingrove District,’’ will
be recognized as a name of viticultural
significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the
TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The
text of the proposed regulation clarifies
this point. Consequently, wine bottlers
using the name ‘‘Fountaingrove
District’’ in a brand name, including a
trademark, or in another label reference
as to the origin of the wine, would have
to ensure that the product is eligible to
use the AVA name as an appellation of
origin if this proposed rule is adopted
as a final rule. TTB does not believe that
‘‘Fountaingrove,’’ standing alone,
should have viticultural significance if
the proposed AVA is established, due to
the current use of ‘‘Fountaingrove,’’
standing alone, as a brand name on
wine labels. Accordingly, the proposed
part 9 regulatory text set forth in this
document specifies only the full name
‘‘Fountaingrove District’’ as a term of
viticultural significance for purposes of
part 4 of the TTB regulations. Wine
labels using either ‘‘Fountaingrove’’ or
‘‘Fountain Grove,’’ standing alone,
would not be affected if the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA is
established.
The approval of the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA would not
affect any existing AVA, and any
bottlers using ‘‘North Coast’’ as an
appellation of origin or in a brand name
for wines made from grapes grown
within the North Coast AVA would not
be affected by the establishment of this
new AVA. The establishment of the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
would allow vintners to use
‘‘Fountaingrove District’’ and ‘‘North
Coast’’ as appellations of origin for
wines made from grapes grown within
the proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility
requirements for the appellation.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested
members of the public on whether it
should establish the proposed AVA.
TTB is also interested in receiving
comments on the sufficiency and
accuracy of the name, boundary, soils,
climate, and other required information
submitted in support of the petition. In
addition, given the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA’s location
within the existing North Coast AVA,
TTB is interested in comments on
whether the evidence submitted in the
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
36688
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
petition regarding the distinguishing
features of the proposed AVA
sufficiently differentiates it from the
existing North Coast AVA. TTB is also
interested in comments whether the
geographic features of the proposed
AVA are so distinguishable from the
surrounding North Coast AVA that the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
should no longer be part of that AVA.
Please provide any available specific
information in support of your
comments.
Because of the potential impact of the
establishment of the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA on wine
labels that include the term
‘‘Fountaingrove District’’ as discussed
above under Impact on Current Wine
Labels, TTB is particularly interested in
comments regarding whether there will
be a conflict between the proposed AVA
name and currently used brand names.
If a commenter believes that a conflict
will arise, the comment should describe
the nature of that conflict, including any
anticipated negative economic impact
that approval of the proposed AVA will
have on an existing viticultural
enterprise. TTB is also interested in
receiving suggestions for ways to avoid
conflicts, for example, by adopting a
modified or different name for the AVA.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this
notice by using one of the following
three methods (please note that TTB has
a new address for comments submitted
by U.S. Mail):
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You
may send comments via the online
comment form posted with this notice
within Docket No. TTB–2014–0006 on
‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal
e-rulemaking portal, at https://
www.regulations.gov. A direct link to
that docket is available under Notice
No. 144 on the TTB Web site at https://
www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files
may be attached to comments submitted
via Regulations.gov. For complete
instructions on how to use
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click
on the ‘‘Help’’ tab.
• U.S. Mail: You may send comments
via postal mail to the Director,
Regulations and Rulings Division,
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12,
Washington, DC 20005.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: You may
hand-carry your comments or have them
hand-carried to the Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW., Suite 200–E, Washington,
DC 20005.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
Please submit your comments by the
closing date shown above in this notice.
Your comments must reference Notice
No. 144 and include your name and
mailing address. Your comments also
must be made in English, be legible, and
be written in language acceptable for
public disclosure. TTB does not
acknowledge receipt of comments, and
TTB considers all comments as
originals.
In your comment, please clearly state
if you are commenting for yourself or on
behalf of an association, business, or
other entity. If you are commenting on
behalf of an entity, your comment must
include the entity’s name as well as
your name and position title. If you
comment via Regulations.gov, please
enter the entity’s name in the
‘‘Organization’’ blank of the online
comment form. If you comment via
postal mail or hand delivery/courier,
please submit your entity’s comment on
letterhead.
You may also write to the
Administrator before the comment
closing date to ask for a public hearing.
The Administrator reserves the right to
determine whether to hold a public
hearing.
electronic or mailed comments that TTB
receives about this proposal by
appointment at the TTB Information
Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. You may also
obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11inch page. Please note that TTB is
unable to provide copies of the USGS
quadrangle maps or any similarly sized
documents that may be included as part
of the AVA petition. Contact TTB’s
information specialist at the above
address or by telephone at 202–453–
2270 to schedule an appointment or to
request copies of comments or other
materials.
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.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this
proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory
assessment is required.
Public Disclosure
TTB will post, and you may view,
copies of this notice, selected
supporting materials, and any online or
mailed comments received about this
proposal within Docket No. TTB–2014–
0006 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. 144.
You may also reach the relevant docket
through the Regulations.gov search page
at https://www.regulations.gov. For
information on how to use
Regulations.gov, click on the site’s
‘‘Help’’ tab.
All posted comments will display the
commenter’s name, organization (if
any), city, and State, and, in the case of
mailed comments, all address
information, including email addresses.
TTB may omit voluminous attachments
or material that the Bureau considers
unsuitable for posting.
You may also view copies of this
notice, all related petitions, maps and
other supporting materials, and any
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations
and Rulings Division drafted this notice
of proposed rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed
regulation, if adopted, would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The proposed regulation imposes no
new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of a viticultural
area name would be the result of a
proprietor’s efforts and consumer
acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB proposes to amend title
27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
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. Subpart C is amended by adding
§ 9.ll to read as follows:
■
§ 9.ll
Fountaingrove District.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Fountaingrove District.’’ For purposes
of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Fountaingrove
District’’ is a term of viticultural
significance.
(b) Approved maps. The four United
States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to
determine the boundary of the
Fountaingrove District viticultural area
are titled:
(1) Mark West Springs, CA; 1993;
(2) Calistoga, CA; 1997;
(3) Kenwood, CA; 1954; photorevised
1980; and
(4) Santa Rosa, CA; 1994.
(c) Boundary. The Fountaingrove
District viticultural area is located in
Sonoma County, California. The
boundary of the Fountaingrove District
viticultural area is as described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the
Mark West Springs map at the
intersection of the shared Sonoma–Napa
County line with Petrified Forest Road,
section 3, T8N/R7W.
(2) From the beginning point, proceed
southeasterly along the Sonoma–Napa
County line, crossing onto the Calistoga
map and then the Kenwood map, to the
marked 2,530-peak of an unnamed
mountain, section 9, T7N/R6W; then
(3) Proceed west-southwest in a
straight line to the marked 2,730-foot
summit of Mt. Hood, section 8, T7N/
R6W; then
(4) Proceed west-northwest in a
straight line to the marked 1,542-foot
summit of Buzzard Peak, section 11,
T7N/R7W; then
(5) Proceed west-southwest in a
straight line, crossing onto the Santa
Rosa map, to the intersection of State
Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road; then
(6) Proceed due north in a straight
line to the southern boundary of section
9, T7N/R7W; then
(7) Proceed west-northwest along the
southern boundaries of sections 9, 4,
and 5, T7N/R7W, to the western
boundary of the Los Guilicos Land
Grant; then
(8) Proceed west-southwest along the
southern boundaries of sections 5, 6,
and 7, T7N/R7W; then continue westsouthwest along the southern
boundaries of sections 12 and 11, T7N/
R8W, to the point where the section 11
boundary becomes concurrent with an
unnamed light-duty road known locally
as Lewis Road; and then continue westsouthwest along Lewis Road to the
road’s intersection with Mendocino
Avenue in Santa Rosa; then
(9) Proceed north-northwesterly along
Mendocino Avenue to the road’s
intersection with an unnamed road
known locally as Bicentennial Way;
then
(10) Proceed north in a straight line,
crossing through the marked 906-foot
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:59 Jun 27, 2014
Jkt 232001
elevation peak in section 35, T8N/R8W,
and, crossing on to the Mark West
Springs map, continue to the line’s
intersection with Mark West Springs
Road, section 26, T8N/R8W; then
(11) Proceed northerly along Mark
West Springs Road, which turns easterly
and becomes Porter Creek Road, to the
road’s intersection with Franz Valley
Road, section 12, T8N/R8W; then
(12) Proceed northeasterly along
Franz Valley Road to the western
boundary of section 6, T8N/R7W; then
(13) Proceed south along the western
boundary of section 6, T8N/R7W, to the
southwest corner of section 6; then
(14) Proceed east, then east-northeast
along the southern boundaries of
sections 6, 5, and 4, T8N/R7W, to the
southeast corner of section 4; then
(15) Proceed north along the eastern
boundary of section 4, T8N/R7W, to the
Sonoma–Napa County line; then
(16) Proceed easterly along the
Sonoma–Napa County line to the
beginning point.
Dated: June 23, 2014.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014–15212 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0242; FRL–9912–86Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Proposed Approval of
Revisions to PSD Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) to EPA on March 12,
2014, for parallel processing. The
submittal modifies Wisconsin’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program to identify precursors for
particulate matter of less than 2.5
micrometers (PM2.5), includes the
significant emissions rates for PM2.5 and
revises its definitions of PM2.5 emissions
and emissions of particulate matter of
less than 10 micrometers (PM10). WDNR
requested these revisions to address
disapprovals of two submissions meant
to address requirements of the 2008
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36689
Implementation of New Source Review
(NSR) Program for PM2.5 and to address
a partial disapproval, under section 110
of the Clean Air Act (CAA), of what is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is proposing
approval of Wisconsin’s March 12,
2014, SIP revision because the Agency
has made the preliminary determination
that this SIP revision is in accordance
with the CAA and applicable EPA
regulations regarding PSD.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 30, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2014–0242, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: damico.genevieve@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 385–5501.
4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air
Permits Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico,
Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014–
0242. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36683-36689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15212]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2014-0006; Notice No. 144]
RIN 1513-AC09
Proposed Establishment of the Fountaingrove District Viticultural
Area
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
establish the approximately 38,000-acre ``Fountaingrove District''
viticultural area in Sonoma County, California. The proposed
viticultural area lies entirely within the larger, multicounty North
Coast viticultural area. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow
vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow
consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites
comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Please send your comments on this notice to one of the
following addresses (please note that TTB has a new address for
comments submitted by U.S. mail):
Internet: https://www.regulations.gov (via the online
comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2014-0006
at ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal);
U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division,
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12,
Washington, DC 20005; or
Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC
20005.
See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific
instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for
information on how to request a public hearing or obtain or review
copies of the petition and supporting materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various
authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated
December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions
and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission to TTB of petitions
for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas
(AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of
the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in
part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other
characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the
wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure
for proposing the establishment of an AVA and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes
the standards for petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the
following:
Evidence that the region within the proposed AVA boundary
is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the
petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
A narrative description of the features of the proposed
AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
Fountaingrove District Petition
TTB received a petition from Douglas Grigg of Walnut Hill
Vineyards, LLC, on behalf of the Fountaingrove Appellation Committee,
proposing the establishment of the ``Fountaingrove District'' AVA in
Sonoma County, California. The committee originally proposed the name
``Fountaingrove'' but later requested to change the name to
``Fountaingrove District'' in order to avoid affecting current use of
the word ``Fountaingrove,'' standing alone, in brand names on wine
labels. The
[[Page 36684]]
proposed AVA contains approximately 38,000 acres and has approximately
35 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of 500 acres.
Cabernet sauvignon, chardonnay, sauvignon blanc, merlot, cabernet
franc, zinfandel, syrah, and viognier are the primary grape varieties
grown within the proposed AVA. According to the petition, the
distinguishing features of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
include temperature, soils, and topography. Unless otherwise noted, all
information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this
document are from the petition for the proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA and its supporting exhibits.
The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is located in Sonoma
County, California, northeast of the city of Santa Rosa. The proposed
AVA lies within the larger, multicounty North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30).
The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA shares its boundaries with the
established Russian River Valley (27 CFR 9.66), Chalk Hill (27 CFR
9.52), Knights Valley (27 CFR 9.76), Calistoga (27 CFR 9.209), Diamond
Mountain District (27 CFR 9.166), Spring Mountain District (27 CFR
9.143), and Sonoma Valley (27 CFR 9.29) AVAs, but does not overlap any
of these AVAs. As it was originally submitted, the petition first
proposed a western boundary that slightly overlapped the established
Russian River Valley AVA, but after discussions with TTB, the
petitioner adjusted the proposed boundary to follow the established
Russian River Valley AVA boundary because the original proposed
boundary would have resulted in dividing at least one existing vineyard
between Russian River Valley AVA and the proposed Fountaingrove
District AVA.
Name Evidence
The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA derives its name from the
historic community of Fountain Grove, a utopian colony founded
northeast of the city of Santa Rosa in 1875 by Thomas Lake Harris. The
community included 400 acres of vineyards and a winery. By 1882, the
winery was producing 70,000 gallons of wine per year, making it one of
the 10 largest wineries in California at that time.
In 1880, Harris appointed his California lieutenant, Kanaye
Nagasawa, to take charge of the vineyard and winery operations and act
as developer and manager of the community's 2,000 acres of vineyards.
In 1900, Harris sold his interest in the vineyards and winery to
Nagasawa and five other members of the commune, and by 1908, Nagasawa
was the sole surviving owner of the Fountain Grove vineyards and
winery. During Prohibition, he kept the vineyards and winery facilities
productive by producing grape juice and cooking sherry. After
Prohibition was repealed in 1933, Nagasawa changed the name of the
winery and the community to ``Fountaingrove.'' Nagasawa died in 1934,
and the property was eventually sold and turned into a cattle ranch.
Although the original community no longer exists and the original
Fountaingrove Winery remains only as a few abandoned buildings, the
name ``Fountaingrove'' is still associated with the region of the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA. The petition notes that several
modern subdivisions within the proposed AVA bear the ``Fountaingrove''
name, including Fountaingrove Ranch, Fountaingrove Village,
Fountaingrove II, and the Meadows at Fountaingrove, which are all built
on portions of the original Fountaingrove community and vineyards.
Fountaingrove Parkway is a road that runs through the southwestern
portion of the proposed AVA. Fountaingrove Lake is a large reservoir
within the proposed AVA. Finally, the petition listed several
businesses within the proposed AVA that use the name ``Fountaingrove,''
including Fountaingrove Inn Hotel and Conference Center, Fountaingrove
Lodge Retirement Community, Fountaingrove Golf and Athletic Club,
Fountaingrove Realty, Fountaingrove MedSpa, Fountaingrove Dentistry,
Fountaingrove Deli, and Fountaingrove Cleaners.
Boundary Evidence
The proposed AVA is a region of rolling hills and steeper mountains
with elevations that range from approximately 400 feet near the city of
Santa Rosa, at the southwestern boundary of the proposed AVA, to
approximately 2,200 feet in the eastern portion of the proposed AVA,
near the Sonoma-Napa County line.
The proposed boundary follows a series of elevation contours,
roads, county lines, USGS map section lines, and straight lines between
points marked on the relevant USGS maps. The northern portion of the
proposed boundary is shared with the southern boundaries of the
established Knights Valley and Chalk Hill AVAs. The eastern portion of
the proposed boundary is formed by a ridgeline in the Mayacmas
Mountains that forms the Sonoma-Napa County line. This portion of the
proposed boundary is shared with the established Calistoga, Diamond
Mountain District, and Spring Mountain District AVAs. Part of the
southern portion of the proposed boundary is shared with the
established Sonoma Valley AVA. The remainder of the proposed southern
boundary separates the hills and mountains of the proposed AVA from the
flat, urbanized terrain of the city of Santa Rosa. The western portion
of the proposed boundary is shared with the established Russian River
Valley AVA. The differences between the proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA and the adjacent established AVAs are discussed below.
Distinguishing Features
The distinguishing features of the proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA include its temperature, soils, and topography, and these are
discussed in detail below.
Temperature
The temperature of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is
moderated by cool breezes from the Pacific Ocean. The breezes enter the
region through a gap in the Sonoma Mountains between Taylor Mountain
(located south of the city of Santa Rosa) and Redwood Hill (located
north of the city). Because of the marine influence, the median growing
season temperature within the proposed AVA is 63.9 degrees Fahrenheit.
The petition provided the growing degree day units (GDD units),\1\
calculated in degrees Celsius (C), for 16 vineyards distributed
throughout the proposed AVA, and the petitioner determined the median
number of GDD units for the entire proposed AVA was 1,663.\2\ According
to the Winkler scale, this figure places the proposed AVA in the Warm
Region II category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Winkler climate classification system, annual heat
accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual GDD,
defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree
Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees
Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), the minimum temperature required
for grapevine growth. For temperatures measured in degrees Celsius,
the GDD ranges are defined as Region I, for fewer than 1,388 GDD
units, Region II from 1,388-1,667 GDD units, Region III for 1,667-
1,944 GDD units, Region IV for 1,944-2,222 GDD units, and Region V
for more than 2,222 GDD units (See Albert J. Winkler, General
Viticulture (Berkley: University of California Press, 1974), 61-64).
\2\ The GDD data was derived from 1971-2000 climate normals
using the data mapping system of the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon
State University. The PRISM mapping system combined climate normals
gathered from weather stations to estimate the general climate
patterns for the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. Climate
normals are only calculated every 10 years, using 30 years of data,
and at the time the petition was submitted, the most recent climate
normals available were from the period of 1971-2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table was included in the petition and compares the
median
[[Page 36685]]
growing season temperatures and GDD units of the proposed Fountaingrove
District AVA to those of the surrounding established AVAs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Direction from growing season Average GDD
AVA name proposed AVA temperature unit Winkler category
(Celsius) accumulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fountaingrove District........... N/A................ 17.7 1,663 Warm Region II.
Russian River Valley............. West............... 17.1 1,520 Region II.
Bennett Valley................... Southwest.......... 17.4 1,589 Region II.
Chalk Hill....................... North.............. 17.6 1,634 Warm Region II.
Sonoma Valley.................... South.............. 17.8 1,676 Cool Region III.
Knights Valley................... North.............. 18.3 1,788 Region III.
Spring Mountain District......... East............... 18.3 1,785 Region III.
Diamond Mountain District........ East............... 18.7 1,818 Region III.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the table, the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is
generally warmer than the region to the west and cooler than the region
to the east. The temperatures within the Chalk Hill AVA, which is north
of the proposed AVA, are similar to those in the Fountaingrove
District; however, the Knights Valley AVA, which is also north of the
proposed AVA, has significantly more GDD units than the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA because the higher hillsides of the Knights
Valley AVA shelter its broad valley floor from the marine breezes. The
Sonoma Valley AVA, immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, is slightly warmer.
The petition states that although the temperature differences
between the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA and the surrounding
regions appear slight, they do have a significant effect on
viticulture. The petition includes a chart grouping grape varietals by
maturation times based on average growing season temperatures.\3\
According to the chart, most varietals only ripen successfully (meaning
they achieve desired levels of acidity, sugars, and flavors) within a
3-to-4 degree C range of temperatures. As a result, cool-climate pinot
noir grapes ripen successfully in the cooler temperatures of the
neighboring Russian River Valley AVA, but do not grow reliably within
the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, according to the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Gregory V. Jones et al., ``Climate and Wine: Quality Issues
in a Warmer World,'' Climate Change, pages 319-343, December 1,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition notes that even the same varietal of grapes grown at
opposite ends of the small range of ``optimal'' temperatures will have
different characteristics. For example, the petition states that
chardonnay grown in a Warm Region II area, such as the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA, will have a tropical fruit flavor, whereas
chardonnay grown in a cooler area will produce a drier, more mineral-
like flavor. Likewise, cabernet sauvignon, one of the most commonly
grown grapes in the proposed AVA, produces a lower alcohol wine with
subtle flavors when grown in a Warm Region II area, but often produces
wines with higher alcohol content and riper flavors when grown in
Region III and Region IV areas. Vintners consider these flavor and
alcohol differences when producing and blending their wines.
Soils
The soils within the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA are
derived primarily from Sonoma Volcanic and Franciscan Formation
bedrock. The volcanic soils include Goulding, Spreckels, Laniger, and
Felta series soils, which consist of pumiceous ash-flow tuff, and
Guenoc and Toomes series soils, which consist of basalt lava. These
volcanic soils are described in the petition as being well-drained and
having a balance of nutrients favorable for grape-growing. Soils
derived from the Franciscan Complex include the Boomer and Henneke
series. Henneke soils contain the mineral serpentine, which has high
levels of nickel and can be toxic to grapevines unless the soil is
ameliorated to lower the levels. Soils of the Boomer series have
desirably high levels of iron, which is an essential element for vine
growth and fruit development.
The following table shows the soil types found within the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA and the surrounding established AVAs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVA name and direction from proposed AVA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Spring Proposed
Soil series Chalk Hill Russian Sonoma Knights Mountain Mountain Fountaingrove
(North) River Valley Valley Valley District District District
(West) (South) (North) (East) (East)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonoma Volcanics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goulding......................................... ............ ............ X X X X X
Laniger.......................................... ............ ............ ............ X ............ ............ X
Felta............................................ X X X ............ ............ ............ X
Forward.......................................... ............ ............ X X X X .................
Spreckels........................................ X X X ............ ............ ............ X
Toomes........................................... X X ............ X ............ ............ X
Guenoc........................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ X
Kidd............................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ X X .................
Sobrante......................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ X X
[[Page 36686]]
Hambright........................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ X ............ .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franciscan Complex
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dibble........................................... X X ............ ............ ............ ............ .................
Maymen........................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ X X
Laughlin......................................... ............ X ............ X ............ ............ .................
Boomer........................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ X X X
Aiken............................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ X X X
Red Hill......................................... ............ ............ X X ............ ............ .................
Suther........................................... ............ ............ ............ X ............ ............ X
Yorkville *...................................... ............ X ............ X ............ ............ X
Henneke *........................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ X X
Raynor *......................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ X
Montara *........................................ X X ............ ............ ............ ............ X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River and Terrace Deposits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotati........................................... ............ X ............ ............ ............ ............ .................
Wright........................................... ............ X X ............ ............ ............ .................
Clear Lake....................................... ............ X X ............ ............ ............ .................
Arbuckle......................................... X X ............ X ............ ............ .................
Huichica......................................... X X X ............ ............ ............ .................
Yolo............................................. X X ............ X ............ ............ X
Zamora........................................... ............ X X ............ ............ ............ .................
Pleasanton....................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ X X
Cortina.......................................... ............ ............ ............ X ............ ............ .................
Haire............................................ X X X X ............ ............ X
Clough........................................... ............ ............ X X ............ ............ .................
Positas.......................................... X X ............ ............ ............ ............ .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Grove Formation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldridge........................................ ............ X ............ ............ ............ ............ .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates soil contains serpentine.
As shown in the table, the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA has
a greater diversity of soils than the surrounding AVAs. The proposed
AVA has fewer soils derived from river and terrace deposits than most
of the surrounding established AVAs. The petition states that soils
comprised of river and terrace deposits are generally not as well-
drained as volcanic soils and may require artificial drainage. Compared
to the surrounding regions, the proposed AVA also has more soils that
contain nickel-rich serpentine, which can be toxic to grapevines in
high levels. Therefore, soils that contain serpentine must often be
ameliorated in order to reduce the nickel levels so that the vines can
grow.
Topography
The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA is located on the western
slopes of the Mayacmas Mountains, northeast of the city of Santa Rosa.
The topography consists of low rolling hills and higher, steeper
mountains. Although there are some narrow floodplains along creeks, the
proposed AVA lacks the broad valley floors and floodplains that
characterize several of the surrounding established AVAs. The slopes
within the proposed AVA are primarily oriented towards the southwest.
Elevations range from approximately 400 feet to approximately 2,200
feet, and all of the vineyards within the proposed Fountaingrove
District AVA are planted at elevations between 450 and 2,115 feet.
Topography affects viticulture within the proposed AVA. According
to the petition, the hillsides form a ``thermal belt'' that traps warm
air, resulting in nighttime temperatures that are warmer than those of
the lower, flatter valleys of the surrounding regions. The warmer
temperatures reduce the risk of frost in the late spring and early
fall. The southwest aspect of most of the slopes within the proposed
AVA allows vineyards to be planted where they can receive the maximum
amount of sunlight and warmth.
Immediately to the west of the proposed AVA is the Russian River
Valley AVA. Elevations in the region begin at approximately 600 feet
along the border shared with the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA
and become lower and flatter southwest of the proposed AVA, within the
city of Santa Rosa. Elevations within much of the city are between 100
and 200 feet.
To the north of the proposed AVA are the Chalk Hill and Knights
Valley AVAs. The Chalk Hill AVA has a mountainous terrain with
elevations similar to those of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA,
but the soils within the Chalk Hill AVA distinguish it from the
proposed AVA, as discussed later in this document. The Knights Valley
AVA has generally lower elevations and contains the broad, flat Knights
Valley and Franz Valley.
To the east of the proposed AVA are the Calistoga, Spring Mountain
District, and Diamond Mountain District AVAs, which have elevations and
terrain similar to the proposed AVA. However, moving east, the
mountainous topography of the Calistoga AVA quickly lowers to
elevations of around 300 feet within the broad, flat Napa Valley. The
slopes of the three established AVAs primarily face
[[Page 36687]]
northeast, compared to the southwest-facing slopes of the proposed AVA.
Because the established AVAs are located mostly on the lee side of the
Mayacmas Mountains, they are subject to less maritime influence than
the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA.
To the south of the proposed AVA, the Sonoma Valley AVA is marked
by a long, flat valley surrounded by the Mayacmas Mountains to the east
and the Sonoma Mountains to the west. The Sonoma Valley AVA receives
less of the cooling marine air than the proposed Fountaingrove District
AVA because of the shielding effect of the Sonoma Mountains.
Summary of Distinguishing Features
In summary, the temperature, soils, and topography of the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA distinguish it from the surrounding adjacent
AVAs. Compared to the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, the Chalk
Hill and Knights Valley AVAs to the north both have more soils derived
from river and terrace deposits. Additionally, the Knights Valley AVA
has warmer temperatures and significantly larger valleys than the
proposed AVA. To the east, the Calistoga, Spring Mountain District, and
Diamond Mountain District AVAs are warmer, have less soil diversity,
and have mountain slopes oriented to the northeast. To the south, the
Sonoma Valley AVA is warmer, has more alluvial soils, and is dominated
by a large, flat valley rather than rolling hills and steeper
mountains. To the west, the Russian River Valley AVA has cooler
temperatures, more alluvial soils, and generally lower and flatter
elevations.
Comparison of the Proposed Fountaingrove District AVA to the Existing
North Coast AVA
The North Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-145, published in
the Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 42973). It includes
all or portions of Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, Marin, and Solano
Counties, California. TTB notes that the North Coast AVA contains all
or portions of approximately 40 established AVAs, in addition to the
area covered by the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA. In the
conclusion of the ``Geographical Features'' section of the preamble,
T.D. ATF-145 states that ``[d]ue to the enormous size of the North
Coast, variations exist in climatic features such as temperature,
rainfall, and fog intrusion.''
The proposed Fountaingrove District AVA shares the basic
viticultural feature of the North Coast AVA--the marine influence that
moderates growing season temperatures in the area. However, the
proposed AVA is much more uniform in its temperature, soils, and
topography than the diverse, multicounty North Coast AVA. In this
regard, TTB notes that T.D. ATF-145 specifically states that ``approval
of this viticultural area does not preclude approval of additional
areas, either wholly contained with the North Coast, or partially
overlapping the North Coast,'' and that ``smaller viticultural areas
tend to be more uniform in their geographical and climatic
characteristics, while very large areas such as the North Coast tend to
exhibit generally similar characteristics, in this case the influence
of maritime air off of the Pacific Ocean and San Pablo Bay.'' Thus, the
proposal to establish the Fountaingrove District AVA is not
inconsistent with what was envisioned when the North Coast AVA was
established.
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately
38,000-acre Fountaingrove District AVA merits consideration and public
comment, as invited in this notice.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of boundary for the petitioned-for
AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this
proposed rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the proposed regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a
brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine
must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that
name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in Sec.
4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is
not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the
brand name, then the label is not in compliance, and the bottler must
change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if
the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading
manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name
that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986.
See Sec. 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for
details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``Fountaingrove
District,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance
under Sec. 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The
text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently,
wine bottlers using the name ``Fountaingrove District'' in a brand
name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the
origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible
to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule
is adopted as a final rule. TTB does not believe that
``Fountaingrove,'' standing alone, should have viticultural
significance if the proposed AVA is established, due to the current use
of ``Fountaingrove,'' standing alone, as a brand name on wine labels.
Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set forth in this
document specifies only the full name ``Fountaingrove District'' as a
term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB
regulations. Wine labels using either ``Fountaingrove'' or ``Fountain
Grove,'' standing alone, would not be affected if the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA is established.
The approval of the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA would not
affect any existing AVA, and any bottlers using ``North Coast'' as an
appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes
grown within the North Coast AVA would not be affected by the
establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed
Fountaingrove District AVA would allow vintners to use ``Fountaingrove
District'' and ``North Coast'' as appellations of origin for wines made
from grapes grown within the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA, if
the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on
whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in
receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name,
boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in
support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Fountaingrove
District AVA's location within the existing North Coast AVA, TTB is
interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the
[[Page 36688]]
petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA
sufficiently differentiates it from the existing North Coast AVA. TTB
is also interested in comments whether the geographic features of the
proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding North Coast
AVA that the proposed Fountaingrove District AVA should no longer be
part of that AVA. Please provide any available specific information in
support of your comments.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Fountaingrove District AVA on wine labels that include the
term ``Fountaingrove District'' as discussed above under Impact on
Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments
regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA
name and currently used brand names. If a commenter believes that a
conflict will arise, the comment should describe the nature of that
conflict, including any anticipated negative economic impact that
approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing viticultural
enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving suggestions for ways to
avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a modified or different name
for the AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the
following three methods (please note that TTB has a new address for
comments submitted by U.S. Mail):
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the
online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2014-
0006 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under
Notice No. 144 on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments
submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab.
U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or
have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,
1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20005.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 144 and include your
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English,
be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public
disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB
considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for
yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If
you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include
the entity's name as well as your name and position title. If you
comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the
``Organization'' blank of the online comment form. If you comment via
postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's
comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for
public disclosure.
Public Disclosure
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2014-0006 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. 144. You may
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page
at https://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use
Regulations.gov, click on the site's ``Help'' tab.
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all
address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous
attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for
posting.
You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions,
maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed
comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the
TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC
20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page.
Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of the USGS quadrangle
maps or any similarly sized documents that may be included as part of
the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above
address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or
to request copies of comments or other materials.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived
from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a
proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this notice of proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend
title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.---- to read as follows:
Sec. 9.---- Fountaingrove District.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is
[[Page 36689]]
``Fountaingrove District.'' For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``Fountaingrove District'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The four United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
Fountaingrove District viticultural area are titled:
(1) Mark West Springs, CA; 1993;
(2) Calistoga, CA; 1997;
(3) Kenwood, CA; 1954; photorevised 1980; and
(4) Santa Rosa, CA; 1994.
(c) Boundary. The Fountaingrove District viticultural area is
located in Sonoma County, California. The boundary of the Fountaingrove
District viticultural area is as described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the Mark West Springs map at the
intersection of the shared Sonoma-Napa County line with Petrified
Forest Road, section 3, T8N/R7W.
(2) From the beginning point, proceed southeasterly along the
Sonoma-Napa County line, crossing onto the Calistoga map and then the
Kenwood map, to the marked 2,530-peak of an unnamed mountain, section
9, T7N/R6W; then
(3) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line to the marked 2,730-
foot summit of Mt. Hood, section 8, T7N/R6W; then
(4) Proceed west-northwest in a straight line to the marked 1,542-
foot summit of Buzzard Peak, section 11, T7N/R7W; then
(5) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line, crossing onto the
Santa Rosa map, to the intersection of State Highway 12 and Los Alamos
Road; then
(6) Proceed due north in a straight line to the southern boundary
of section 9, T7N/R7W; then
(7) Proceed west-northwest along the southern boundaries of
sections 9, 4, and 5, T7N/R7W, to the western boundary of the Los
Guilicos Land Grant; then
(8) Proceed west-southwest along the southern boundaries of
sections 5, 6, and 7, T7N/R7W; then continue west-southwest along the
southern boundaries of sections 12 and 11, T7N/R8W, to the point where
the section 11 boundary becomes concurrent with an unnamed light-duty
road known locally as Lewis Road; and then continue west-southwest
along Lewis Road to the road's intersection with Mendocino Avenue in
Santa Rosa; then
(9) Proceed north-northwesterly along Mendocino Avenue to the
road's intersection with an unnamed road known locally as Bicentennial
Way; then
(10) Proceed north in a straight line, crossing through the marked
906-foot elevation peak in section 35, T8N/R8W, and, crossing on to the
Mark West Springs map, continue to the line's intersection with Mark
West Springs Road, section 26, T8N/R8W; then
(11) Proceed northerly along Mark West Springs Road, which turns
easterly and becomes Porter Creek Road, to the road's intersection with
Franz Valley Road, section 12, T8N/R8W; then
(12) Proceed northeasterly along Franz Valley Road to the western
boundary of section 6, T8N/R7W; then
(13) Proceed south along the western boundary of section 6, T8N/
R7W, to the southwest corner of section 6; then
(14) Proceed east, then east-northeast along the southern
boundaries of sections 6, 5, and 4, T8N/R7W, to the southeast corner of
section 4; then
(15) Proceed north along the eastern boundary of section 4, T8N/
R7W, to the Sonoma-Napa County line; then
(16) Proceed easterly along the Sonoma-Napa County line to the
beginning point.
Dated: June 23, 2014.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-15212 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
