Proposed Establishment of the Petaluma Gap Viticultural Area and Modification of the North Coast Viticultural Area, 74979-74987 [2016-25972]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules § 200.926 Minimum property standards for one and two family dwellings. (a) * * * (3) Applicability of standards to substantial improvement. The standards in § 200.926d(c)(4)(i) through (iii) are also applicable to structures that are approved for insurance or other benefits prior to the start of substantial improvement, as defined in § 55.2(b)(10) of this title. * * * * * ■ 17. In § 200.926d, revise paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii), remove paragraph (c)(4)(iv), and redesignate paragraphs (c)(4)(v) and (c)(4)(vi) as paragraphs (c)(4)(iv) and (c)(4)(v), respectively. The revisions read as follows: § 200.926d Construction requirements. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS * * * * * (c) * * * (4) * * * (i) Residential structures located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. The elevation of the lowest floor shall be at least two feet above the base flood elevation (see 24 CFR 55.2 for appropriate data sources). (ii) Residential structures located in FEMA-designated ‘‘coastal high hazard areas’’. (A) Basements or any permanent enclosure of space below the lowest floor of a structure are prohibited. (B) Where FEMA has determined the base flood level without establishing stillwater elevations, the bottom of the lowest structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings and columns) and its horizontal supports shall be at least two feet above the base flood elevation. (iii) New construction or substantial improvement. (A) In all cases in which a Direct Endorsement (DE) mortgagee or a Lender Insurance (LI) mortgagee seeks to insure a mortgage on a one- to fourfamily dwelling that is newly constructed or which undergoes a substantial improvement, as defined in § 55.12(b)(10) of this title (including a manufactured home that is newly erected or undergoes a substantial improvement) that was processed by the DE or LI mortgagee, the DE or LI mortgagee must determine whether the property improvements (dwelling and related structures/equipment essential to the value of the property and subject to flood damage) are located on a site that is within a Special Flood Hazard Area, as designated on maps of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If so, the DE mortgagee, before submitting the application for insurance to HUD, or the LI mortgagee, before submitting all the required data regarding the mortgage to HUD, must obtain: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 (1) A final Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA); (2) A final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR); or (3) A signed Elevation Certificate documenting that the lowest floor (including basement) of the property improvements is at least two feet above the base flood elevation as determined by FEMA’s best available information. (B) Under the DE program, these mortgages are not eligible for insurance unless the DE mortgagee submits the LOMA, LOMR, or Elevation Certificate to HUD with the mortgagee’s request for endorsement. * * * * * Dated: September 27, 2016. Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. [FR Doc. 2016–25521 Filed 10–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Docket No. TTB–2016–0009; Notice No. 163] RIN 1513–AC34 Proposed Establishment of the Petaluma Gap Viticultural Area and Modification of the North Coast 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 202,476-acre ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ viticultural area in portions of Sonoma and Marin Counties in California. TTB also proposes to expand the boundary of the existing 3 millionacre North Coast viticultural area by 28,077 acres in order to include the entire proposed Petaluma Gap viticultural area within it. The proposed Petaluma Gap viticultural area would also partially extend outside of the established Sonoma Coast viticultural area, but TTB is not proposing to modify the boundary of the Sonoma 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 these proposals. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 74979 TTB must receive your comments on or before December 27, 2016. DATES: Please send your comments on this proposal to one of the following addresses: • https://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form for this document as posted within Docket No. TTB–2016– 009 at ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal erulemaking portal); • U.S. mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or • Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. See the Public Participation section of this document for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing. You may view copies of this document, selected supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives about this proposal at https:// www.regulations.gov within Docket No. TTB–2016–0009. A link to that docket is posted on the TTB Web site at https:// www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 163. You also may view copies of this document, all related petitions, maps or other supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. Please call 202–453–2270 to make an appointment. ADDRESSES: 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 E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1 74980 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120–01, dated December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120–01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following: • Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition; • An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA; • A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA that affect VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 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 boundary; • 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. Petition to Establish the Petaluma Gap AVA and to Modify the Boundary of the North Coast AVA TTB received a petition from the Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance, proposing to establish the ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ AVA and to modify the boundary of the existing multi-county North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed AVA covers portions of Sonoma and Marin Counties, in California. There are 9 bonded wineries and 80 commercial vineyards, covering a total of approximately 4,000 acres, distributed throughout the 202,476-acre proposed AVA. While the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is largely located within the existing North Coast AVA, a small portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA would, if established, extend outside the current southern boundary of the established North Coast AVA. To address the potential partial overlap of the two AVAs and account for viticultural similarities between the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and the larger North Coast AVA, the petition also proposes to expand the boundary of the North Coast AVA so that the entire proposed Petaluma Gap AVA would be included within the North Coast AVA. The proposed expansion would increase the size of the 3 million-acre North Coast AVA boundary by 28,077 acres. The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, if established, would also partially overlap the southwestern boundary of the established Sonoma Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.116), but the Marin County portion of the proposed AVA, consisting of approximately 68,130 acres, would extend outside of the Sonoma Coast AVA. However, the petition does not propose to modify the boundary of the Sonoma Coast AVA for reasons which will be discussed later in this document, including the lack of use of the name ‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ outside of Sonoma County. The distinguishing features of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA are its topography and wind speeds. Unless otherwise noted, all information and PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 data contained in the following sections are from the petition to establish the proposed AVA and its supporting exhibits. Proposed Petaluma Gap AVA Name Evidence The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA derives its name from the city of Petaluma and from the geographical feature known as the ‘‘Petaluma Gap,’’ both of which are located within the proposed AVA. The ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ geographical feature is an area of lowlying hills which allows cool winds to flow inland from the Pacific Ocean. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Web site states, ‘‘The region from the Estero Lowlands to the San Pablo Bay is known as the Petaluma Gap. * * * Wind patterns in the Petaluma and Cotati Valleys are strongly influenced by the Petaluma Gap.’’ 1 In a study on the climate of Sonoma County, Paul Vossen, a farm advisor for the University of California Cooperative Extension Service in Sonoma County, wrote that cool marine winds extend inland ‘‘through river canyons and the Petaluma gap [sic] to Sonoma Mountain.’’ 2 The name ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ is also associated with the wine industry within the proposed AVA. The petitioner provided summaries of several wine-related articles that refer to the region of the proposed AVA as ‘‘Petaluma Gap.’’ In his blog ‘‘Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog,’’ Tom Wark writes, ‘‘The ‘Petaluma Gap’ might be a term you’ve heard of lately, particularly if you are an aficionado of Sonoma County wines.’’ 3 A 2007 article by Rusty Gaffney on his ‘‘The Prince of Pinot’’ blog says, ‘‘The Petaluma Gap possesses a very unique microclimate.’’ 4 A 2007 article in the magazine Wine and Spirits states, ‘‘You can practically smell the ocean, just a few miles away, in the wind that roars between the Sonoma mountains, through the hillside and valley floor vineyards, creating an inland pinot oasis called the Petaluma Gap.’’ 5 A 2008 article titled ‘‘Mind the (Petaluma) Gap’’ in the Tasting Panel magazine describes 1 www.baaqmd.gov/∼/media/Files/Planning%20 and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20 Guidelines%20May%202011.ashx?la=en. 2 Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986. 3 http://fermentationwineblog.com/2006/05/wind _fog_wine_t/, ‘‘Wind, Fog, Wine: The Story of ‘The Gap’,’’ May 8, 2006. 4 http://www.princeofpinot.com/article/281, ‘‘Petaluma Gap: Fog Noir.’’ January 15, 2007. 5 Irwin, Heather. ‘‘The Wind Tunnel: Sonoma County’s Best Kept Pinot Noir Secret.’’ Wine and Spirits, August 2007. E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules the region of the proposed AVA as follows: ‘‘Located at the lower end of the Sonoma Coast AVA and distinguished by its close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the Petaluma Gap is influenced on a daily basis by misty fog in the mornings, warm afternoons and chilly maritime winds in the evenings.’’ 6 A 2012 article in Decanter magazine describes several regions in California that are ‘‘the state’s most marginal sites,’’ including ‘‘the Petaluma Gap within the Sonoma Coast appellation * * * .’’ 7 A 2012 article in the Petaluma Post newspaper states, ‘‘The wind and fog are the Petaluma Gap’s trademark.’’ 8 Finally, a 2014 article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat newspaper states, ‘‘The Gap in Petaluma Gap is created by Pacific Ocean winds that flow between Tomales Bay and Bodega Bay through a 15-mile-wide gap in the coastal range mountains.’’ 9 Boundary Evidence The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in southern Sonoma County and northern Marin County. The proposed AVA has a northwest-southeast orientation and extends from the Pacific Ocean to San Pablo Bay. The proposed western boundary follows the Pacific coastline from the point where Walker Creek enters Tomales Bay northward to the point where Salmon Creek enters the ocean, just north of Bodega Bay. The proposed northern boundary follows Salmon Creek, the 400-foot elevation contour, and a series of roads and lines drawn between marked elevation points in order to separate the lower elevations and rolling hills of the proposed AVA from the steeper, higher elevations to the north. The proposed eastern boundary follows a series of lines drawn between points on the USGS map, separating the proposed AVA from the higher elevations of Sonoma Mountain and the flatter terrain along Sonoma Creek and San Pablo Bay. The proposed southern boundary follows a series of lines drawn between marked elevation points in order to separate the proposed AVA from the higher elevations to the south. Distinguishing Features According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA are its topography and wind speed. Topography Coastal highlands and mountain ranges are characteristic of the California coast. However, within the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, the highlands are not as pronounced as they are north and south of the proposed AVA. Within the proposed AVA, the topography is characterized by low, rolling hills. Flat land is found along the Petaluma River, especially east of the City of Petaluma and near the mouth of San Pablo Bay. Small valleys and fluvial terraces are also present. Elevations within the proposed AVA do not exceed 600 feet, except in a few places within the ridgelines that form the proposed northern, eastern, and southern boundaries. According to the petition, the low elevations and gently rolling terrain of the proposed Petaluma Gap create a corridor that allows marine winds to flow relatively unhindered from the Pacific Ocean to San Pablo Bay, particularly during the mid-to-late afternoon. As a result, cool air and marine fog enter the vineyards during the time of day when temperatures would normally be at their highest, bringing heat relief to the vines. The low elevations and rolling hills of the proposed AVA also allow the marine air to enter the proposed AVA at higher speeds than found in the surrounding areas, where higher, steeper mountains disrupt the flow of air. The effects of the high wind speeds on grapes are discussed in detail later in this document. To the north of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, the elevations are much higher, with elevations over 1,000 74981 feet not uncommon in northern Sonoma County. The broad Santa Rosa Plain is also located north of the proposed AVA and has a much flatter topography than the proposed AVA. East of the proposed AVA, the higher elevations of Sonoma Mountain prevent much of the marine airflow that enters the Petaluma Gap from travelling farther east. East of Sonoma Mountain is the Sonoma Valley, which has lower elevations and flatter terrain than the proposed AVA. To the south of the proposed AVA, the elevations can exceed 1,000 feet. Wind Speed According to the petition, marine air enters the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA at the Pacific coastline, between Bodega Bay and Tomales Bay. The air then flows southeasterly through the proposed AVA and exits at San Pablo Bay. Although marine breezes are present within the proposed AVA during most of the day, the wind speeds increase significantly in the afternoon hours. The petition states that in the mid-to-late afternoon, inland temperatures increase, causing the hot air to rise and pull the cooler, heavier marine air in from the coast and create steady winds. The following table, which was created by TTB from information included in the petition, shows the hourly average wind speed between noon and 6:00 p.m. for locations within the proposed AVA and the surrounding areas during the April– October growing season. Map 5a, included in Addendum 2 to the petition, shows the locations of the weather stations. Because the Pacific Ocean forms the western boundary of the proposed AVA, comparison data is only included from the regions to the north, east, and south of the proposed AVA. The data in the table shows that average hourly afternoon wind speeds within the proposed AVA are consistently higher than those in the surrounding regions. TABLE 1—AVERAGE HOURLY AFTERNOON GROWING SEASON WIND SPEEDS Average wind speed (miles per hour) Location 12 noon 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS Within proposed AVA Valley Ford 10 ............... Bloomfield 11 ................. Mecham Landfill 12 ....... 13.3 5.4 7.7 14.4 7.0 9.5 6 Sawyer, Christopher. ‘‘Mind the (Petaluma) Gap.’’ The Tasting Panel. February 2008. 7 Murphy, Linda. ‘‘California’s Coolest Pinot.’’ Decanter. March 2010. http://www.decanter.com/ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 14.9 7.9 12.0 14.8 8.3 13.7 people-and-places/wine-articles/483749/coolclimate-california-pinot. 8 Hurson, Von. ‘‘The Gap Roars!’’ Petaluma Post. August 1, 2012. http://www.petalumapost.com/ 08Aug2012-pages/index.htm. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 14.0 8.1 14.6 12.4 7.4 14.8 10.2 6.0 13.8 9 Boone, Virginie. ‘‘Wines of Wind Country.’’ The Press Democrat. February 4, 2014. http://www.press democrat.com/news/1855471-181/wines-of-windcountry. E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1 74982 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—AVERAGE HOURLY AFTERNOON GROWING SEASON WIND SPEEDS—Continued Average wind speed (miles per hour) Location 12 noon Middle Two Rock 13 ...... Azaya Vineyard 14 ........ Petaluma Airport 15 ....... Sun Chase Vineyard 16 Sonoma Baylands 17 .... 1 p.m. 8.6 5.2 9.5 5.4 10.5 2 p.m. 10.8 6.5 11.1 6.3 11.4 3 p.m. 12.2 7.6 12.1 6.8 12.0 4 p.m. 13.0 8.1 12.2 6.9 12.4 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 13.1 8.1 11.5 6.5 12.4 12.4 7.5 10.3 5.7 12.0 10.8 6.4 9.0 4.2 10.7 Outside proposed AVA (direction) Occidental 18 (north) ..... Belleview Ranch 19 (north) ....................... Sonoma Valley 20 (east) Novato 21 (south) .......... 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.0 1.6 2.2 1.7 1.4 3.0 2.0 1.8 3.6 2.4 2.0 3.8 2.6 2.2 3.8 2.5 2.4 3.3 2.1 2.4 2.7 1.6 4.1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS The petition also includes a table showing the frequency of hourly average afternoon wind speeds of at least 8 miles per hour for locations within the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and the surrounding regions. The data is summarized in the following table. The period of record for each station is the same as used for Table 1. TABLE 2—FREQUENCY OF HOURLY AVERAGE GROWING SEASON WIND SPEEDS THAT ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 8 MILES PER HOUR— Continued Comparison of the Proposed Petaluma Gap AVA to the Existing North Coast AVA The North Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF–145, which was published in the Federal Register on September Frequency 21, 1983 (48 FR 42973). The AVA Location (percent) includes all or portions of Napa, Bellevue Ranch (south) ........ 9.2 Sonoma, Mendocino, Solano, Lake, and Marin Counties in California and covers TABLE 2—FREQUENCY OF HOURLY approximately 3 million acres. In the AVERAGE GROWING SEASON WIND The table shows that afternoon wind conclusion of the ‘‘Geographical SPEEDS THAT ARE GREATER THAN speeds for locations within the Features’’ section of the preamble, T.D. OR EQUAL TO 8 MILES PER HOUR proposed AVA reach or exceed 8 miles ATF–145 states that ‘‘[d]ue to the per hour with greater frequency than for enormous size of the North Coast Frequency Location locations outside the proposed AVA. (percent) viticultural area, variations exist in The petition states that when wind climatic features such as temperature, speeds reach 8 miles per hour, the Within proposed AVA rainfall, and fog intrusion.’’ stomata (or small pores) on the Valley Ford ........................... 89.9 underside of the grape leaves close. The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA Bloomfield ............................. 44.0 When the stomata are closed, the rate of shares the basic viticultural feature of Mecham Landfill ................... 81.2 the North Coast AVA—the marine Middle Two Rock .................. 82.0 photosynthesis slows. The petition influence that moderates growing states that occasional periods of wind Azaya Vineyard .................... 36.7 season temperatures in the area. Petaluma Airport ................... 79.5 speeds of 8 miles per hour or higher However, the proposed AVA is much Sun Chase Vineyard ............ 30.3 typically have little effect on grape Sonoma Baylands ................ 82.8 development. However, persistently more uniform in its topography and its climate, as defined by wind speeds, high wind speeds, such as those found Outside proposed AVA (direction) than the diverse, multicounty North within the proposed Petaluma Gap Coast AVA. In this regard, TTB notes Occidental (north) ................. 0.6 AVA, reduce photosynthesis to the Novato (north) ....................... 5.3 extent that the grapes have to remain on that in the ‘‘Overlapping Viticultural Areas’’ section, T.D. ATF–145 Sonoma Valley (east) ........... 1.8 the vine longer in order to reach a given specifically states that ‘‘approval of this sugar level (a longer ‘‘hang time’’), 10 Period of record 2009–2014. viticultural area does not preclude compared to the same grape varietal 11 Period of record 2011–2014. approval of additional areas, either grown in a less windy location. Grapes 12 Period of record 2011–2014. wholly contained within the North 13 Period of record 2011–2014. grown in windy locations are also Coast, or partially overlapping the North 14 Period of record 2012–2014. typically smaller and have thicker skins Coast,’’ and that ‘‘smaller viticultural 15 Period of record 1993–1997. This station than the same varietal grown elsewhere. areas tend to be more uniform in their stopped collecting hourly data in 1997. According to the petition, the smaller 16 Period of record 2011–2013. This station was geographical and climatic grape size, thicker skins, and longer a private weather station that experienced a characteristics, while very large areas mechanical failure in February 2014 and was not hang time concentrate the flavor such as the North Coast tend to exhibit repaired until after the growing season. compounds in the fruit, allowing grapes generally similar characteristics, in this 17 Period of record 2009–2014. that are harvested at lower sugar levels 18 Period of record 2009–2014. case the influence of maritime air off of 19 Period of record 2010–2014. to still have the typical flavor the Pacific Ocean and San Pablo Bay.’’ 20 Period of record 2012–2014. characteristics of the grape varietal. Thus, the proposal to establish the 21 Period of record 2009, 2012–2014. The 2010 Petaluma Gap AVA is consistent with and 2011 data for this station were largely what was envisaged when the North incomplete and so were not included in the analysis. Coast AVA was established. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS Proposed Modification of the North Coast AVA As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA also requests an expansion of the established North Coast AVA. The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in the southwestern portion of the North Coast AVA, along the Sonoma–Marin County line. Most of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA would, if established, be located within the current boundary of the North Coast AVA. However, unless the boundary of the North Coast AVA is modified, the southwestern portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA in northwestern Marin County would be outside the North Coast AVA. This portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is roughly defined by the Pacific coastline on the western edge, the Sonoma–Marin County line on the northern edge, State Highway 1 on the eastern edge, and the mouth of Walker Creek on the southern edge. The proposed North Coast AVA boundary modification would increase the size of the established AVA by 28,077 acres and would result in the entire proposed Petaluma Gap AVA being within the North Coast AVA. According to T.D. ATF–145, the North Coast AVA is characterized by a cool climate with growing degree day (GDD) totals that range from Region I to Region III on the Winkler scale.22 T.D. ATF–145 states that the western portion of Marin County, which includes the southwestern portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, was excluded from the North Coast AVA because evidence submitted during the comment period showed that this portion of the county was significantly cooler than the rest of the North Coast AVA. The evidence included data from several Marin County weather stations, including a weather station on Point Reyes, which is southwest of both the North Coast AVA and the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA. In examining the public comment to T.D. ATF–145, TTB has found that the GDD total provided for Point Reyes was 759. Although the original determination to exclude western Marin County from 22 In the Winkler climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual growing degree days (GDDs), defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day’s mean temperature is above 50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. The Winkler scale regions are defined as follows: Region I = less than 2,500 GDDs; Region II = 2,501–3,000 GDDs; Region III = 3,001–3,500 GDDs; Region IV = 3,501–4,000 GDDs; Region V = greater than 4,000 GDDs. See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pages 61–64. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 the North Coast AVA was based on data from a Point Reyes weather station, which is southwest of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, TTB believes that GDD totals from that location are not an accurate basis for determining whether to include the southwestern corner of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA within the North Coast AVA. The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA petition includes 2013 GDD data from a weather station located in Valley Ford, which is in the southwestern portion of the proposed AVA but outside of the current North Coast AVA boundary, as well as from weather stations within the proposed AVA, including one located two miles north of the town of Bodega Bay, that are within the current boundaries of the North Coast AVA. The 2013 GDD total for the Valley Ford station was 1,102, which falls into the Region I category on the Winkler scale. For comparison, the 2013 GDD total for the Bodega Bay station was 1,194, which also falls into the Region I category on the Winkler scale. TTB believes, therefore, that this data shows that the climate of the southwestern portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is within the range of Winkler scale regions that characterizes the current North Coast AVA. Additionally, in response to a question from TTB, the petitioners confirmed that there is at least one active vineyard growing Pinot Noir grapes in the southwest portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA near Valley Ford, indicating that the GDD total for that region of the proposed AVA is not too low for commercial viticulture. Therefore, because the GDD total of the southwest portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is within the range of GDD totals that characterize the North Coast AVA and is high enough to support viticulture, TTB believes the petitioner’s proposal to expand the North Coast AVA to include the southwest portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA merits consideration and public comment. Comparison of the Proposed Petaluma Gap AVA to the Existing Sonoma Coast AVA The Sonoma Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF–253, which was published in the Federal Register on June 11, 1987 (52 FR 22302). The Sonoma Coast AVA covers approximately 750 square miles within the western portion of Sonoma County. According to T.D. ATF–253, the AVA encompasses the portion of Sonoma County that is under ‘‘very strong marine climate influence,’’ including ‘‘persistent fog.’’ T.D. ATF–253 also PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 74983 states that temperatures within the AVA are classified as ‘‘Coastal Cool’’ under the temperature classification system developed by Robert L. Sisson. ‘‘Coastal Cool’’ areas are defined as having a cumulative duration of less than 1,000 hours between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the months of April through October. Temperatures within the Sonoma Coast AVA are described as significantly cooler than temperatures in the eastern portion of Sonoma County, which are classified as ‘‘Coastal Warm.’’ According to T.D. ATF–253, the average maximum July temperature for the Sonoma Coast AVA is 84 degrees Fahrenheit. T.D. ATF–253 did not distinguish the climate of the Sonoma Coast AVA from that of Marin County, located south of the AVA. The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in the southern portion of the Sonoma Coast AVA and shares the marine-influenced climate and coastal fog of the established AVA. Additionally, according to the climate data provided in the petition, the average maximum July temperature for the city of Petaluma, at the center of the proposed AVA, is 82 degrees Fahrenheit 23, which is similar to that of the Sonoma Coast AVA. However, TTB notes that temperature is not a distinguishing feature of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, and that consistently high wind speeds and a topography of gently rolling hills are what distinguish the proposed AVA from the surrounding established AVA. As previously noted, if established, the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA would partially overlap the Sonoma Coast AVA, but also would leave the 68,130acre Marin County portion of the proposed AVA outside of the established Sonoma Coast AVA. However, the petition requests that TTB allow the partial overlap to remain, primarily because the name ‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ is associated only with the coastal region of Sonoma County and does not extend into Marin County. Although TTB generally discourages partial overlaps of AVAs because of the potential for consumer confusion, TTB agrees with the petitioners that the Sonoma Coast AVA should not be expanded to include the Marin County portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA. TTB believes that extending the Sonoma Coast AVA would likely cause consumer confusion because the name ‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ is associated with Sonoma County and use of the name does not extend into Marin County. TTB 23 Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html, Petaluma Fire Station 3 (046826). E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1 74984 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules does not believe the potential partial overlap should be resolved by limiting the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA to Sonoma County because the evidence in the petition demonstrates that both the Sonoma County and the Marin County portions of the proposed AVA share similar topographic characteristics and similar wind speeds. TTB also does not believe the proposed AVA should be removed entirely from the Sonoma Coast AVA because the proposed AVA and the established AVA share similar marine-influenced climates. Additionally, TTB notes that removing the proposed AVA from the Sonoma Coast AVA would potentially affect current label holders who use the ‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ appellation on their wines because wines made primarily from grapes grown in the removed region would no longer be eligible to be labeled with that AVA as an appellation of origin. For these reasons, TTB is proposing to leave the current boundaries of the Sonoma Coast AVA unchanged and to allow the partial overlap with the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA. TTB Determination TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 202,476-acre ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ AVA and to concurrently modify the boundary of the existing North Coast AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this document. TTB is proposing the establishment of the new AVA and the modification of the existing AVA as one action. Accordingly, if TTB establishes the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, then the proposed boundary modification of the North Coast would be approved concurrently. If TTB does not establish the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, then the present North Coast AVA boundary would not be modified as proposed in this document. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS Boundary Description See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA and the boundary modification of the established AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 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 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 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. If this proposed regulatory text is adopted as a final rule, wine bottlers using ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ 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 viticultural area’s full name ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ as an appellation of origin. If approved, the establishment of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and the proposed modification of the North Coast AVA boundary would allow vintners to use ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ or ‘‘North Coast’’ as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Petaluma Gap AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. Additionally, vintners would be able to use ‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ as an appellation of origin on wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Sonoma County portion of the Petaluma Gap 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 TTB should establish the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and concurrently modify the boundary of the established North Coast AVA. TTB is interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, climate, topography, and other required information submitted in support of the Petaluma Gap AVA petition. In addition, given the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA’s location within the existing North Coast AVA and Sonoma Coast AVA, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 sufficiently differentiates it from the existing AVAs. TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from either the North Coast AVA or the Sonoma Coast AVA that the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA should not be part of one or either established AVA. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments. TTB also invites comments on the proposed expansion of the existing North Coast AVA. TTB is especially interested in comments on whether the evidence provided in the petition sufficiently demonstrates that the proposed expansion area is similar enough to the North Coast AVA to be included in the established AVA. Additionally, TTB is interested in comments on whether or not TTB should allow the Marin County portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA to remain outside of the Sonoma Coast AVA. Comments should address the boundaries, climate, topography, soils, and any other pertinent information that supports or opposes the proposed North Coast AVA boundary expansion and/or the partial overlap of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA with the Sonoma Coast AVA. Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA on wine labels that include the term ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ 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 area 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 proposed AVA. Submitting Comments You may submit comments on this proposal by using one of the following three methods: • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this document within Docket No. TTB– 2016–0009 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at https:// www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 163 on the TTB Web site at https:// www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 at the top of the page. • U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005. • Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 163 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity, your comment must include the entity’s name as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity’s name in the ‘‘Organization’’ blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your entity’s comment on letterhead. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS 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 document, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB–2016– 0009 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at https:// www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 163. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at https://www.regulations.gov. For instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ‘‘Help’’ tab at the top of the page. 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 it considers unsuitable for posting. You also may view copies of this document, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202–453–2265 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 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: ■ PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 74985 Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.30 is amended as follows: a. The introductory text of paragraph (b) is revised; ■ b. The word ‘‘and’’ is removed from the end of paragraph (b)(2); ■ c. The period is removed from the end of paragraph (b)(3) and a semicolon is added in its place; ■ d. Paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) are added; ■ e. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) are revised; ■ f. Paragraphs (c)(3) through (24) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(7) through (28); and ■ g. Paragraphs (c)(3) through (6) are added. The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 9.30 North Coast. * * * * * (b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the boundaries of the North Coast viticultural area are five U.S.G.S. maps. They are entitled: * * * (4) ‘‘Tomales, CA,’’ scale 1:24,000, edition of 1995; and (5) ‘‘Point Reyes NE., CA,’’ scale 1:24,000, edition of 1995. (c) * * * (1) Then follow the Pacific coastline in a generally southeasterly direction for 9.4 miles, crossing onto the Tomales map, to Preston Point on Tomales Bay; (2) Then northeast along the shoreline of Tomales Bay approximately 1 mile to the mouth of Walker Creek opposite benchmark (BM) 10 on State Highway 1; (3) Then southeast in a straight line for 1.3 miles to the marked 714-foot peak; (4) Then southeast in a straight line for 3.1 miles, crossing onto the Point Reyes NE map, to the marked 804-foot peak; (5) Then southeast in a straight line 1.8 miles to the marked 935-foot peak; (6) Then southeast in a straight line 12.7 miles, crossing back onto the Santa Rosa map, to the marked 1,466-foot peak on Barnabe Mountain; * * * * * ■ 3. Add § 9.lll to read as follows: § 9.lll Petaluma Gap. (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ is a term of viticultural significance. (b) Approved maps. The 12 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Petaluma Gap viticultural area are titled: E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS 74986 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules (1) Cotati, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980; (2) Glen Elle, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980; (3) Petaluma River, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980; (4) Sears Point, Calif., 1951; photorevised 1968; (5) Petaluma Point, Calif., 1959; photorevised 1980; (6) Novato, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980; (7) Petaluma, Calif., 1953; photorevised 1981; (8) Point Reyes NE., CA, 1995; (9) Tomales, CA, 1995; (10) Bodega Head, Calif., 1972; (11) Valley Ford, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1971; and (12) Two Rock, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1971. (c) Boundary. The Petaluma Gap viticultural area is located in Sonoma and Marin Counties in California. The boundary of the Petaluma Gap viticultural area is as described below: (1) The beginning point is on the Cotati map at the intersection of Grange Road, Crane Canyon Road, and the northern boundary of section 16, T6N/ R7W. From the beginning point, proceed southeast in a straight line for 1 mile, crossing over Pressley Road, to the intersection of the 900-foot elevation contour and the eastern boundary of section 16, T6N/R7W; then (2) Proceed east-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.5 mile, crossing onto the Glen Ellen map, to the terminus of an unnamed, unimproved road known locally as Summit View Ranch Road, just north of the southern boundary of section 15, T6N/R7N; then (3) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the intersection of Crane Creek and the 1,200-foot elevation contour, section 22, T6N/R7W; then (4) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 2.9 miles to the marked 2,271-foot peak on Sonoma Mountain, T6N/R6W; then (5) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 10.5 miles, crossing over the northeastern corner of the Petaluma River map and onto the Sears Point map, to the marked 682-foot summit of Wildcat Mountain; then (6) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line for 3.3 miles to the intersection of State Highway 121 (also known locally as Arnold Drive) and State Highway 37 (also known locally as Sears Point Road); then (7) Proceed east-northeasterly along State Highway 37/Sears Point Road for approximately 0.1 mile to Tolay Creek; then (8) Proceed generally south along the meandering Tolay Creek for 3.9 miles, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 crossing onto the Petaluma Point map, to the mouth of the creek at San Pablo Bay; then (9) Proceed southwesterly along the shore of San Pablo Bay for 2.7 miles, crossing the mouth of the Petaluma River, and continuing southeasterly along the bay’s shoreline to Petaluma Point; then (10) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line for 6.3 miles, crossing over the northeastern corner of the Novato map and onto the Petaluma River map, to the marked 1,558-foot peak of Burdell Mountain; then (11) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.3 miles to the marked 1,193foot peak; then (12) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line for 2.2 miles, crossing onto the Petaluma map, to the marked 1,209foot peak; then (13) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the marked 1,296-foot peak; then (14) Proceed west in a straight line for 1 mile to the marked 1,257-foot peak on Red Hill in section 31, T4N/R7W; then (15) Proceed southwest in a straight line for 2.9 miles to the marked 1,532foot peak on Hicks Mountain; then (16) Proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line for 2.7 miles, crossing onto the Point Reyes NE map, to the marked 1,087-foot peak; then (17) Proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line for 1.5 miles to the marked 1,379-foot peak; then (18) Proceed west-northwesterly in a straight line for 2.9 miles to the marked 935-foot peak; then (19) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.8 miles to the marked 804-foot peak; then (20) Proceed west-northwesterly in a straight line for 3.1 miles, crossing onto the Tomales map, to the marked 741foot peak; then (21) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line for 1.3 miles to benchmark (BM) 10 on State Highway 1, at the mouth of Walker Creek in Tomales Bay; then (22) Proceed southwesterly, then northwesterly along the shoreline of Tomales Bay to Sand Point, on Bodega Bay, and continuing northerly along the shoreline of Bodega Bay, crossing over the Valley Ford map and onto the Bodega Head map, circling the shoreline of Bodega Harbor to the Pacific Ocean and continuing northerly along the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of Salmon Creek, for a total of 19.5 miles; then (23) Proceed easterly along Salmon Creek for 9.6 miles, crossing onto the Valley Ford map and passing Nolan Creek, to the second intermittent stream PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then (24) Proceed east in a straight line for 1 mile to vertical angle benchmark (VABM) 724 in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then (25) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.8 mile to BM 61 on an unmarked light duty road known locally as Freestone Valley Ford Road in the ˜ Canada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/ R10W; then (26) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the marked 448-foot ˜ peak in the Canada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then (27) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.1 mile to the northern terminus of an unnamed, unimproved ˜ road in the Canada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then (28) Proceed northeasterly, then southeasterly for 0.9 mile along the unnamed, unimproved road to the 400˜ foot elevation contour in the Canada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then (29) Proceed easterly along the meandering 400-foot elevation contour for 6.7 miles, crossing onto the Two Rocks map, to Burnside Road in the ˜ Canada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/ R10W; then (30) Proceed south on Burnside Road for 0.1 mile to an unnamed medium duty road known locally as Bloomfield ˜ Road in the Canada de Pogolimi land grant,T6N/R9W; then (31) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the marked 610-foot peak in the Blucher land grant, T6N/ R9W; then (32) Proceed east-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the marked 641-foot peak in the Blucher land grant, T6N/R9W; then (33) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 1.2 miles, crossing through the intersection of an intermittent stream with Canfield Road, to the common Range 8/9 boundary; then (34) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the marked 542-foot peak; then (35) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the intersection of an unnamed, unimproved road (leading to four barn-like structures) known locally as Carniglia Lane and an unnamed medium duty road known locally as Roblar Road, T6N/R8W; then (36) Proceed south in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the marked 678-foot peak, T6N/R8W; then (37) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the marked 599-foot peak, T5N/R8W; then (38) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.7 mile to the marked 604-foot peak, T5N/R8W; then E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 209 / Friday, October 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules (39) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.9 mile, crossing onto the Cotati map, to the intersection of Meacham Road and an unnamed light duty road leading to a series of barn-like structures, T5N/R8W; then (40) Proceed north-northeast along Meacham Road for 0.8 mile to Stony Point Road, T5N/R8W; then (41) Proceed southeast along Stony Point Road for 1.1 miles to the 200-foot elevation contour, T5N/R8W; then (42) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the intersection of an intermittent creek with U.S. Highway 101, T5N/R8W; then (43) Proceed north along U.S. Highway 101 for 1.5 miles to State Highway 116 (also known locally as Graverstein Highway), T6N/R8W; then (44) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 3.4 miles to the intersection of Crane Creek and Petaluma Hill Road, T6N/R7W; then (45) Proceed easterly along Crane Creek for 0.8 mile to the intersection of Crane Creek and the 200-foot elevation line, T6N/R7W; then (46) Proceed northwesterly along the 200-foot elevation contour for 1 mile to the intersection of the contour line and an intermittent stream just south of Crane Canyon Road, T6N/R7W; then (47) Proceed east then northeasterly along the northern branch of the intermittent stream for 0.3 mile to the intersection of the stream with Crane Canyon Road, T6N/R7W; then (48) Proceed northeasterly along Crane Canyon Road for 1.2 miles, returning to the beginning point. Signed: October 21, 2016. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2016–25972 Filed 10–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–31–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Chapter XVII Informal Discussion on Hazard Communication Rulemaking Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: This notice is to advise interested persons that on Wednesday, November 16, 2016, OSHA will conduct a public meeting to informally discuss potential updates to the Hazard Communication Standard. The purpose SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:23 Oct 27, 2016 Jkt 241001 of this meeting is to invite stakeholders to identify topics or issues they would like OSHA to consider in the rulemaking. DATES: Wednesday November 16, 2016. ADDRESSES: OSHA’s informal discussion on Hazard Communication rulemaking will be held Wednesday, November 16, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m.at the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) Headquarters, Suite 700, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Maureen Ruskin, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693–1950, email: ruskin.maureen@dol.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Advanced Meeting Registration: OSHA requests that attendees preregister for this meeting by completing the form at https:// www.surveymonkey.com/r/CRPK2YY. Please note if you are attending in person MSHA, who is hosting this meeting, requires pre-registration seven days before the meeting. Failure to preregister for this event will prevent your access into the MSHA Headquarters building. Additionally, if you are attending in-person, OSHA suggests you plan to arrive early to allow time for the security checks necessary to access the building. Conference call-in and WebEx capability will be provided for this meeting. Specific information on the MSHA Headquarters building access, and call-in and WebEx meeting access will be posted when available in the Highlights box on OSHA’s Hazard Communication Web site at: https:// www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/index.html. OSHA is beginning its rulemaking efforts to maintain alignment of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) with the most recent revision of the United Nations Globally Harmonized system of Classification and Labelling of chemicals (GHS). The purpose of this meeting is to request feedback from stakeholders and informally discuss potential topics or issues that OSHA should consider during a rulemaking to update the HCS. OSHA will also solicit suggestions about the types of publications stakeholders might find helpful in complying with the standard and which topics on which they would like OSHA to prepare additional compliance materials in the future. Authority and Signature: This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 74987 Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), and Secretary’s Order 1– 2012 (77 FR 3912), (Jan. 25, 2012). Signed at Washington, DC, on October 24, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. 2016–26003 Filed 10–27–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–26–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 1 [Docket No.: PTO–P–2011–0030] RIN 0651–AC58 Revision of the Duty To Disclose Information in Patent Applications and Reexamination Proceedings United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or PTO) is proposing revisions to the materiality standard for the duty to disclose information in patent applications and reexamination proceedings (duty of disclosure) in light of a 2011 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). The Office previously issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on July 21, 2011, and due to the passage of time since the comment period closed in 2011, the Office considers it appropriate to seek additional comments from our stakeholders before issuing a final rulemaking. In the current notice of proposed rulemaking, the Office is seeking public comments on the rules of practice, as revised in response to the comments received from our stakeholders. SUMMARY: Comment Deadline Date: The Office is soliciting comments from the public on this proposed rule change. Written comments must be received on or before December 27, 2016 to ensure consideration. No public hearing will be held. ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this notice should be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet (email) addressed to AC58.comments@ uspto.gov. Comments may also be submitted by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, marked to the attention of Matthew DATES: E:\FR\FM\28OCP1.SGM 28OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74979-74987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2016-0009; Notice No. 163]
RIN 1513-AC34


Proposed Establishment of the Petaluma Gap Viticultural Area and 
Modification of the North Coast Viticultural Area

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to 
establish the 202,476-acre ``Petaluma Gap'' viticultural area in 
portions of Sonoma and Marin Counties in California. TTB also proposes 
to expand the boundary of the existing 3 million-acre North Coast 
viticultural area by 28,077 acres in order to include the entire 
proposed Petaluma Gap viticultural area within it. The proposed 
Petaluma Gap viticultural area would also partially extend outside of 
the established Sonoma Coast viticultural area, but TTB is not 
proposing to modify the boundary of the Sonoma 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 these proposals.

DATES: TTB must receive your comments on or before December 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments on this proposal to one of the 
following addresses:
     https://www.regulations.gov (via the online comment form 
for this document as posted within Docket No. TTB-2016-009 at 
``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal);
     U.S. mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, 
Washington, DC 20005; or
     Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco 
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 
20005.
    See the Public Participation section of this document for specific 
instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for 
information on how to request a public hearing.
    You may view copies of this document, selected supporting 
materials, and any comments TTB receives about this proposal at https://www.regulations.gov within Docket No. TTB-2016-0009. A link to that 
docket is posted on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 163. You also may view copies of this 
document, all related petitions, maps or other supporting materials, 
and any comments TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the 
TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 
20005. Please call 202-453-2270 to make an appointment.

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

[[Page 74980]]

pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various 
authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 
10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), 
to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the 
administration and enforcement of these provisions.
    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to 
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their 
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets 
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the 
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 
lists the approved AVAs.

Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) 
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 
of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as 
established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow 
vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or 
other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its 
geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to 
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and 
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of 
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine 
produced in that area.

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) 
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any 
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region 
as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes 
standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. 
Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
     Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is 
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
     An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of 
the proposed AVA;
     A narrative description of the features of the proposed 
AVA 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 boundary;
     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.

Petition to Establish the Petaluma Gap AVA and to Modify the Boundary 
of the North Coast AVA

    TTB received a petition from the Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance, 
proposing to establish the ``Petaluma Gap'' AVA and to modify the 
boundary of the existing multi-county North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). 
The proposed AVA covers portions of Sonoma and Marin Counties, in 
California. There are 9 bonded wineries and 80 commercial vineyards, 
covering a total of approximately 4,000 acres, distributed throughout 
the 202,476-acre proposed AVA.
    While the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is largely located within the 
existing North Coast AVA, a small portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap 
AVA would, if established, extend outside the current southern boundary 
of the established North Coast AVA. To address the potential partial 
overlap of the two AVAs and account for viticultural similarities 
between the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and the larger North Coast AVA, 
the petition also proposes to expand the boundary of the North Coast 
AVA so that the entire proposed Petaluma Gap AVA would be included 
within the North Coast AVA. The proposed expansion would increase the 
size of the 3 million-acre North Coast AVA boundary by 28,077 acres.
    The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, if established, would also partially 
overlap the southwestern boundary of the established Sonoma Coast AVA 
(27 CFR 9.116), but the Marin County portion of the proposed AVA, 
consisting of approximately 68,130 acres, would extend outside of the 
Sonoma Coast AVA. However, the petition does not propose to modify the 
boundary of the Sonoma Coast AVA for reasons which will be discussed 
later in this document, including the lack of use of the name ``Sonoma 
Coast'' outside of Sonoma County.
    The distinguishing features of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA are 
its topography and wind speeds. Unless otherwise noted, all information 
and data contained in the following sections are from the petition to 
establish the proposed AVA and its supporting exhibits.

Proposed Petaluma Gap AVA

Name Evidence

    The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA derives its name from the city of 
Petaluma and from the geographical feature known as the ``Petaluma 
Gap,'' both of which are located within the proposed AVA. The 
``Petaluma Gap'' geographical feature is an area of low-lying hills 
which allows cool winds to flow inland from the Pacific Ocean. The Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Web site states, ``The 
region from the Estero Lowlands to the San Pablo Bay is known as the 
Petaluma Gap. * * * Wind patterns in the Petaluma and Cotati Valleys 
are strongly influenced by the Petaluma Gap.'' \1\ In a study on the 
climate of Sonoma County, Paul Vossen, a farm advisor for the 
University of California Cooperative Extension Service in Sonoma 
County, wrote that cool marine winds extend inland ``through river 
canyons and the Petaluma gap [sic] to Sonoma Mountain.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/
BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines%20May%202011.ashx?la=en.
    \2\ Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University of 
California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The name ``Petaluma Gap'' is also associated with the wine industry 
within the proposed AVA. The petitioner provided summaries of several 
wine-related articles that refer to the region of the proposed AVA as 
``Petaluma Gap.'' In his blog ``Fermentation: The Daily Wine Blog,'' 
Tom Wark writes, ``The `Petaluma Gap' might be a term you've heard of 
lately, particularly if you are an aficionado of Sonoma County wines.'' 
\3\ A 2007 article by Rusty Gaffney on his ``The Prince of Pinot'' blog 
says, ``The Petaluma Gap possesses a very unique microclimate.'' \4\ A 
2007 article in the magazine Wine and Spirits states, ``You can 
practically smell the ocean, just a few miles away, in the wind that 
roars between the Sonoma mountains, through the hillside and valley 
floor vineyards, creating an inland pinot oasis called the Petaluma 
Gap.'' \5\ A 2008 article titled ``Mind the (Petaluma) Gap'' in the 
Tasting Panel magazine describes

[[Page 74981]]

the region of the proposed AVA as follows: ``Located at the lower end 
of the Sonoma Coast AVA and distinguished by its close proximity to the 
Pacific Ocean, the Petaluma Gap is influenced on a daily basis by misty 
fog in the mornings, warm afternoons and chilly maritime winds in the 
evenings.'' \6\ A 2012 article in Decanter magazine describes several 
regions in California that are ``the state's most marginal sites,'' 
including ``the Petaluma Gap within the Sonoma Coast appellation * * * 
.'' \7\ A 2012 article in the Petaluma Post newspaper states, ``The 
wind and fog are the Petaluma Gap's trademark.'' \8\ Finally, a 2014 
article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat newspaper states, ``The Gap in 
Petaluma Gap is created by Pacific Ocean winds that flow between 
Tomales Bay and Bodega Bay through a 15-mile-wide gap in the coastal 
range mountains.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://fermentationwineblog.com/2006/05/wind_fog_wine_t/, 
``Wind, Fog, Wine: The Story of `The Gap','' May 8, 2006.
    \4\ http://www.princeofpinot.com/article/281, ``Petaluma Gap: 
Fog Noir.'' January 15, 2007.
    \5\ Irwin, Heather. ``The Wind Tunnel: Sonoma County's Best Kept 
Pinot Noir Secret.'' Wine and Spirits, August 2007.
    \6\ Sawyer, Christopher. ``Mind the (Petaluma) Gap.'' The 
Tasting Panel. February 2008.
    \7\ Murphy, Linda. ``California's Coolest Pinot.'' Decanter. 
March 2010. http://www.decanter.com/people-and-places/wine-articles/483749/cool-climate-california-pinot.
    \8\ Hurson, Von. ``The Gap Roars!'' Petaluma Post. August 1, 
2012. http://www.petalumapost.com/08Aug2012-pages/index.htm.
    \9\ Boone, Virginie. ``Wines of Wind Country.'' The Press 
Democrat. February 4, 2014. http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/1855471-181/wines-of-wind-country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boundary Evidence

    The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in southern Sonoma County 
and northern Marin County. The proposed AVA has a northwest-southeast 
orientation and extends from the Pacific Ocean to San Pablo Bay. The 
proposed western boundary follows the Pacific coastline from the point 
where Walker Creek enters Tomales Bay northward to the point where 
Salmon Creek enters the ocean, just north of Bodega Bay. The proposed 
northern boundary follows Salmon Creek, the 400-foot elevation contour, 
and a series of roads and lines drawn between marked elevation points 
in order to separate the lower elevations and rolling hills of the 
proposed AVA from the steeper, higher elevations to the north. The 
proposed eastern boundary follows a series of lines drawn between 
points on the USGS map, separating the proposed AVA from the higher 
elevations of Sonoma Mountain and the flatter terrain along Sonoma 
Creek and San Pablo Bay. The proposed southern boundary follows a 
series of lines drawn between marked elevation points in order to 
separate the proposed AVA from the higher elevations to the south.

Distinguishing Features

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the 
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA are its topography and wind speed.
Topography
    Coastal highlands and mountain ranges are characteristic of the 
California coast. However, within the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, the 
highlands are not as pronounced as they are north and south of the 
proposed AVA. Within the proposed AVA, the topography is characterized 
by low, rolling hills. Flat land is found along the Petaluma River, 
especially east of the City of Petaluma and near the mouth of San Pablo 
Bay. Small valleys and fluvial terraces are also present. Elevations 
within the proposed AVA do not exceed 600 feet, except in a few places 
within the ridgelines that form the proposed northern, eastern, and 
southern boundaries.
    According to the petition, the low elevations and gently rolling 
terrain of the proposed Petaluma Gap create a corridor that allows 
marine winds to flow relatively unhindered from the Pacific Ocean to 
San Pablo Bay, particularly during the mid-to-late afternoon. As a 
result, cool air and marine fog enter the vineyards during the time of 
day when temperatures would normally be at their highest, bringing heat 
relief to the vines. The low elevations and rolling hills of the 
proposed AVA also allow the marine air to enter the proposed AVA at 
higher speeds than found in the surrounding areas, where higher, 
steeper mountains disrupt the flow of air. The effects of the high wind 
speeds on grapes are discussed in detail later in this document.
    To the north of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, the elevations are 
much higher, with elevations over 1,000 feet not uncommon in northern 
Sonoma County. The broad Santa Rosa Plain is also located north of the 
proposed AVA and has a much flatter topography than the proposed AVA. 
East of the proposed AVA, the higher elevations of Sonoma Mountain 
prevent much of the marine airflow that enters the Petaluma Gap from 
travelling farther east. East of Sonoma Mountain is the Sonoma Valley, 
which has lower elevations and flatter terrain than the proposed AVA. 
To the south of the proposed AVA, the elevations can exceed 1,000 feet.
Wind Speed
    According to the petition, marine air enters the proposed Petaluma 
Gap AVA at the Pacific coastline, between Bodega Bay and Tomales Bay. 
The air then flows southeasterly through the proposed AVA and exits at 
San Pablo Bay. Although marine breezes are present within the proposed 
AVA during most of the day, the wind speeds increase significantly in 
the afternoon hours. The petition states that in the mid-to-late 
afternoon, inland temperatures increase, causing the hot air to rise 
and pull the cooler, heavier marine air in from the coast and create 
steady winds. The following table, which was created by TTB from 
information included in the petition, shows the hourly average wind 
speed between noon and 6:00 p.m. for locations within the proposed AVA 
and the surrounding areas during the April-October growing season. Map 
5a, included in Addendum 2 to the petition, shows the locations of the 
weather stations. Because the Pacific Ocean forms the western boundary 
of the proposed AVA, comparison data is only included from the regions 
to the north, east, and south of the proposed AVA. The data in the 
table shows that average hourly afternoon wind speeds within the 
proposed AVA are consistently higher than those in the surrounding 
regions.

                                              Table 1--Average Hourly Afternoon Growing Season Wind Speeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average wind speed (miles per hour)
                Location                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              12 noon         1 p.m.          2 p.m.          3 p.m.          4 p.m.          5 p.m.          6 p.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Within proposed AVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Ford \10\........................            13.3            14.4            14.9            14.8            14.0            12.4            10.2
Bloomfield \11\.........................             5.4             7.0             7.9             8.3             8.1             7.4             6.0
Mecham Landfill \12\....................             7.7             9.5            12.0            13.7            14.6            14.8            13.8

[[Page 74982]]

 
Middle Two Rock \13\....................             8.6            10.8            12.2            13.0            13.1            12.4            10.8
Azaya Vineyard \14\.....................             5.2             6.5             7.6             8.1             8.1             7.5             6.4
Petaluma Airport \15\...................             9.5            11.1            12.1            12.2            11.5            10.3             9.0
Sun Chase Vineyard \16\.................             5.4             6.3             6.8             6.9             6.5             5.7             4.2
Sonoma Baylands \17\....................            10.5            11.4            12.0            12.4            12.4            12.0            10.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Outside proposed AVA (direction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental \18\ (north).................             2.0             2.3             2.5             2.5             2.3             2.0             1.6
Belleview Ranch \19\ (north)............             2.2             3.0             3.6             3.8             3.8             3.3             2.7
Sonoma Valley \20\ (east)...............             1.7             2.0             2.4             2.6             2.5             2.1             1.6
Novato \21\ (south).....................             1.4             1.8             2.0             2.2             2.4             2.4             4.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition also includes a table showing the frequency of hourly 
average afternoon wind speeds of at least 8 miles per hour for 
locations within the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and the surrounding 
regions. The data is summarized in the following table. The period of 
record for each station is the same as used for Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Period of record 2009-2014.
    \11\ Period of record 2011-2014.
    \12\ Period of record 2011-2014.
    \13\ Period of record 2011-2014.
    \14\ Period of record 2012-2014.
    \15\ Period of record 1993-1997. This station stopped collecting 
hourly data in 1997.
    \16\ Period of record 2011-2013. This station was a private 
weather station that experienced a mechanical failure in February 
2014 and was not repaired until after the growing season.
    \17\ Period of record 2009-2014.
    \18\ Period of record 2009-2014.
    \19\ Period of record 2010-2014.
    \20\ Period of record 2012-2014.
    \21\ Period of record 2009, 2012-2014. The 2010 and 2011 data 
for this station were largely incomplete and so were not included in 
the analysis.

Table 2--Frequency of Hourly Average Growing Season Wind Speeds That Are
                Greater Than or Equal to 8 Miles per Hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Frequency
                        Location                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Within proposed AVA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Ford.............................................            89.9
Bloomfield..............................................            44.0
Mecham Landfill.........................................            81.2
Middle Two Rock.........................................            82.0
Azaya Vineyard..........................................            36.7
Petaluma Airport........................................            79.5
Sun Chase Vineyard......................................            30.3
Sonoma Baylands.........................................            82.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Outside proposed AVA (direction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental (north)......................................             0.6
Novato (north)..........................................             5.3
Sonoma Valley (east)....................................             1.8
Bellevue Ranch (south)..................................             9.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The table shows that afternoon wind speeds for locations within the 
proposed AVA reach or exceed 8 miles per hour with greater frequency 
than for locations outside the proposed AVA. The petition states that 
when wind speeds reach 8 miles per hour, the stomata (or small pores) 
on the underside of the grape leaves close. When the stomata are 
closed, the rate of photosynthesis slows. The petition states that 
occasional periods of wind speeds of 8 miles per hour or higher 
typically have little effect on grape development. However, 
persistently high wind speeds, such as those found within the proposed 
Petaluma Gap AVA, reduce photosynthesis to the extent that the grapes 
have to remain on the vine longer in order to reach a given sugar level 
(a longer ``hang time''), compared to the same grape varietal grown in 
a less windy location. Grapes grown in windy locations are also 
typically smaller and have thicker skins than the same varietal grown 
elsewhere. According to the petition, the smaller grape size, thicker 
skins, and longer hang time concentrate the flavor compounds in the 
fruit, allowing grapes that are harvested at lower sugar levels to 
still have the typical flavor characteristics of the grape varietal.

Comparison of the Proposed Petaluma Gap AVA to the Existing North Coast 
AVA

    The North Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-145, which was 
published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 42973). 
The AVA includes all or portions of Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Solano, 
Lake, and Marin Counties in California and covers approximately 3 
million acres. 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 viticultural area, variations exist in 
climatic features such as temperature, rainfall, and fog intrusion.''
    The proposed Petaluma Gap 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 topography and its climate, as defined by wind speeds, 
than the diverse, multicounty North Coast AVA. In this regard, TTB 
notes that in the ``Overlapping Viticultural Areas'' section, T.D. ATF-
145 specifically states that ``approval of this viticultural area does 
not preclude approval of additional areas, either wholly contained 
within 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 Petaluma Gap AVA 
is consistent with what was envisaged when the North Coast AVA was 
established.

[[Page 74983]]

Proposed Modification of the North Coast AVA

    As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed 
Petaluma Gap AVA also requests an expansion of the established North 
Coast AVA. The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in the southwestern 
portion of the North Coast AVA, along the Sonoma-Marin County line. 
Most of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA would, if established, be located 
within the current boundary of the North Coast AVA. However, unless the 
boundary of the North Coast AVA is modified, the southwestern portion 
of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA in northwestern Marin County would be 
outside the North Coast AVA. This portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap 
AVA is roughly defined by the Pacific coastline on the western edge, 
the Sonoma-Marin County line on the northern edge, State Highway 1 on 
the eastern edge, and the mouth of Walker Creek on the southern edge. 
The proposed North Coast AVA boundary modification would increase the 
size of the established AVA by 28,077 acres and would result in the 
entire proposed Petaluma Gap AVA being within the North Coast AVA.
    According to T.D. ATF-145, the North Coast AVA is characterized by 
a cool climate with growing degree day (GDD) totals that range from 
Region I to Region III on the Winkler scale.\22\ T.D. ATF-145 states 
that the western portion of Marin County, which includes the 
southwestern portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, was excluded 
from the North Coast AVA because evidence submitted during the comment 
period showed that this portion of the county was significantly cooler 
than the rest of the North Coast AVA. The evidence included data from 
several Marin County weather stations, including a weather station on 
Point Reyes, which is southwest of both the North Coast AVA and the 
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA. In examining the public comment to T.D. ATF-
145, TTB has found that the GDD total provided for Point Reyes was 759.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In the Winkler climate classification system, annual heat 
accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual growing 
degree days (GDDs), defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates 
for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 
degrees, the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. The 
Winkler scale regions are defined as follows: Region I = less than 
2,500 GDDs; Region II = 2,501-3,000 GDDs; Region III = 3,001-3,500 
GDDs; Region IV = 3,501-4,000 GDDs; Region V = greater than 4,000 
GDDs. See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the original determination to exclude western Marin County 
from the North Coast AVA was based on data from a Point Reyes weather 
station, which is southwest of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, TTB 
believes that GDD totals from that location are not an accurate basis 
for determining whether to include the southwestern corner of the 
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA within the North Coast AVA. The proposed 
Petaluma Gap AVA petition includes 2013 GDD data from a weather station 
located in Valley Ford, which is in the southwestern portion of the 
proposed AVA but outside of the current North Coast AVA boundary, as 
well as from weather stations within the proposed AVA, including one 
located two miles north of the town of Bodega Bay, that are within the 
current boundaries of the North Coast AVA.
    The 2013 GDD total for the Valley Ford station was 1,102, which 
falls into the Region I category on the Winkler scale. For comparison, 
the 2013 GDD total for the Bodega Bay station was 1,194, which also 
falls into the Region I category on the Winkler scale. TTB believes, 
therefore, that this data shows that the climate of the southwestern 
portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is within the range of Winkler 
scale regions that characterizes the current North Coast AVA.
    Additionally, in response to a question from TTB, the petitioners 
confirmed that there is at least one active vineyard growing Pinot Noir 
grapes in the southwest portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA near 
Valley Ford, indicating that the GDD total for that region of the 
proposed AVA is not too low for commercial viticulture. Therefore, 
because the GDD total of the southwest portion of the proposed Petaluma 
Gap AVA is within the range of GDD totals that characterize the North 
Coast AVA and is high enough to support viticulture, TTB believes the 
petitioner's proposal to expand the North Coast AVA to include the 
southwest portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA merits consideration 
and public comment.

Comparison of the Proposed Petaluma Gap AVA to the Existing Sonoma 
Coast AVA

    The Sonoma Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-253, which was 
published in the Federal Register on June 11, 1987 (52 FR 22302). The 
Sonoma Coast AVA covers approximately 750 square miles within the 
western portion of Sonoma County. According to T.D. ATF-253, the AVA 
encompasses the portion of Sonoma County that is under ``very strong 
marine climate influence,'' including ``persistent fog.'' T.D. ATF-253 
also states that temperatures within the AVA are classified as 
``Coastal Cool'' under the temperature classification system developed 
by Robert L. Sisson. ``Coastal Cool'' areas are defined as having a 
cumulative duration of less than 1,000 hours between 70 and 90 degrees 
Fahrenheit during the months of April through October. Temperatures 
within the Sonoma Coast AVA are described as significantly cooler than 
temperatures in the eastern portion of Sonoma County, which are 
classified as ``Coastal Warm.'' According to T.D. ATF-253, the average 
maximum July temperature for the Sonoma Coast AVA is 84 degrees 
Fahrenheit. T.D. ATF-253 did not distinguish the climate of the Sonoma 
Coast AVA from that of Marin County, located south of the AVA.
    The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in the southern portion of 
the Sonoma Coast AVA and shares the marine-influenced climate and 
coastal fog of the established AVA. Additionally, according to the 
climate data provided in the petition, the average maximum July 
temperature for the city of Petaluma, at the center of the proposed 
AVA, is 82 degrees Fahrenheit \23\, which is similar to that of the 
Sonoma Coast AVA. However, TTB notes that temperature is not a 
distinguishing feature of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, and that 
consistently high wind speeds and a topography of gently rolling hills 
are what distinguish the proposed AVA from the surrounding established 
AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Western Regional Climate Center, www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html, Petaluma Fire Station 3 (046826).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, if established, the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA 
would partially overlap the Sonoma Coast AVA, but also would leave the 
68,130-acre Marin County portion of the proposed AVA outside of the 
established Sonoma Coast AVA. However, the petition requests that TTB 
allow the partial overlap to remain, primarily because the name 
``Sonoma Coast'' is associated only with the coastal region of Sonoma 
County and does not extend into Marin County.
    Although TTB generally discourages partial overlaps of AVAs because 
of the potential for consumer confusion, TTB agrees with the 
petitioners that the Sonoma Coast AVA should not be expanded to include 
the Marin County portion of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA. TTB believes 
that extending the Sonoma Coast AVA would likely cause consumer 
confusion because the name ``Sonoma Coast'' is associated with Sonoma 
County and use of the name does not extend into Marin County. TTB

[[Page 74984]]

does not believe the potential partial overlap should be resolved by 
limiting the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA to Sonoma County because the 
evidence in the petition demonstrates that both the Sonoma County and 
the Marin County portions of the proposed AVA share similar topographic 
characteristics and similar wind speeds. TTB also does not believe the 
proposed AVA should be removed entirely from the Sonoma Coast AVA 
because the proposed AVA and the established AVA share similar marine-
influenced climates. Additionally, TTB notes that removing the proposed 
AVA from the Sonoma Coast AVA would potentially affect current label 
holders who use the ``Sonoma Coast'' appellation on their wines because 
wines made primarily from grapes grown in the removed region would no 
longer be eligible to be labeled with that AVA as an appellation of 
origin. For these reasons, TTB is proposing to leave the current 
boundaries of the Sonoma Coast AVA unchanged and to allow the partial 
overlap with the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA.

TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 202,476-acre 
``Petaluma Gap'' AVA and to concurrently modify the boundary of the 
existing North Coast AVA merits consideration and public comment, as 
invited in this document.
    TTB is proposing the establishment of the new AVA and the 
modification of the existing AVA as one action. Accordingly, if TTB 
establishes the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, then the proposed boundary 
modification of the North Coast would be approved concurrently. If TTB 
does not establish the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, then the present 
North Coast AVA boundary would not be modified as proposed in this 
document.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA 
and the boundary modification of the established AVA in the proposed 
regulatory text published at the end of this document.

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 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 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
    If this proposed regulatory text is adopted as a final rule, wine 
bottlers using ``Petaluma Gap'' 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 viticultural area's 
full name ``Petaluma Gap'' as an appellation of origin.
    If approved, the establishment of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and 
the proposed modification of the North Coast AVA boundary would allow 
vintners to use ``Petaluma Gap'' or ``North Coast'' as appellations of 
origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Petaluma Gap AVA, if 
the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. 
Additionally, vintners would be able to use ``Sonoma Coast'' as an 
appellation of origin on wines made primarily from grapes grown within 
the Sonoma County portion of the Petaluma Gap 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 TTB should establish the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and 
concurrently modify the boundary of the established North Coast AVA. 
TTB is interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy 
of the name, boundary, climate, topography, and other required 
information submitted in support of the Petaluma Gap AVA petition. In 
addition, given the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA's location within the 
existing North Coast AVA and Sonoma Coast AVA, TTB is interested in 
comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding 
the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently 
differentiates it from the existing AVAs. TTB is also interested in 
comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so 
distinguishable from either the North Coast AVA or the Sonoma Coast AVA 
that the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA should not be part of one or either 
established AVA. Please provide any available specific information in 
support of your comments.
    TTB also invites comments on the proposed expansion of the existing 
North Coast AVA. TTB is especially interested in comments on whether 
the evidence provided in the petition sufficiently demonstrates that 
the proposed expansion area is similar enough to the North Coast AVA to 
be included in the established AVA. Additionally, TTB is interested in 
comments on whether or not TTB should allow the Marin County portion of 
the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA to remain outside of the Sonoma Coast 
AVA. Comments should address the boundaries, climate, topography, 
soils, and any other pertinent information that supports or opposes the 
proposed North Coast AVA boundary expansion and/or the partial overlap 
of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA with the Sonoma Coast AVA.
    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the 
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA on wine labels that include the term 
``Petaluma Gap'' 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 area 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 proposed AVA.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this proposal by using one of the 
following three methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the 
online comment form posted with this document within Docket No. TTB-
2016-0009 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at 
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available 
under Notice No. 163 on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files

[[Page 74985]]

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 at the top of the page.
     U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the 
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or 
have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 
1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.
    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this 
document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 163 and include your 
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, 
be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public 
disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider 
all comments as originals.
    Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own 
behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If 
you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other 
entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your 
name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please 
enter the entity's name in the ``Organization'' blank of the online 
comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your 
entity's comment on letterhead.
    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing 
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right 
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public 
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your 
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for 
public disclosure.

Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, selected 
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about 
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2016-0009 on the Federal e-
rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at https://www.regulations.gov. A 
direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 163. You may 
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page 
at https://www.regulations.gov. For instructions on how to use 
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the 
top of the page.
    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 it considers unsuitable for posting.
    You also may view copies of this document, all related petitions, 
maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed 
comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB 
Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. 
You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact 
our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-
453-2265 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

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

Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted 
this document.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment

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

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

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. Section 9.30 is amended as follows:
0
a. The introductory text of paragraph (b) is revised;
0
b. The word ``and'' is removed from the end of paragraph (b)(2);
0
c. The period is removed from the end of paragraph (b)(3) and a 
semicolon is added in its place;
0
d. Paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) are added;
0
e. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) are revised;
0
f. Paragraphs (c)(3) through (24) are redesignated as paragraphs (c)(7) 
through (28); and
0
g. Paragraphs (c)(3) through (6) are added.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  9.30  North Coast.

* * * * *
    (b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the 
boundaries of the North Coast viticultural area are five U.S.G.S. maps. 
They are entitled:
     * * *
    (4) ``Tomales, CA,'' scale 1:24,000, edition of 1995; and
    (5) ``Point Reyes NE., CA,'' scale 1:24,000, edition of 1995.
    (c) * * *
    (1) Then follow the Pacific coastline in a generally southeasterly 
direction for 9.4 miles, crossing onto the Tomales map, to Preston 
Point on Tomales Bay;
    (2) Then northeast along the shoreline of Tomales Bay approximately 
1 mile to the mouth of Walker Creek opposite benchmark (BM) 10 on State 
Highway 1;
    (3) Then southeast in a straight line for 1.3 miles to the marked 
714-foot peak;
    (4) Then southeast in a straight line for 3.1 miles, crossing onto 
the Point Reyes NE map, to the marked 804-foot peak;
    (5) Then southeast in a straight line 1.8 miles to the marked 935-
foot peak;
    (6) Then southeast in a straight line 12.7 miles, crossing back 
onto the Santa Rosa map, to the marked 1,466-foot peak on Barnabe 
Mountain;
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec.  9.___ to read as follows:


Sec.  9.___  Petaluma Gap.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``Petaluma Gap''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, 
``Petaluma Gap'' is a term of viticultural significance.
    (b) Approved maps. The 12 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the 
Petaluma Gap viticultural area are titled:

[[Page 74986]]

    (1) Cotati, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980;
    (2) Glen Elle, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980;
    (3) Petaluma River, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980;
    (4) Sears Point, Calif., 1951; photorevised 1968;
    (5) Petaluma Point, Calif., 1959; photorevised 1980;
    (6) Novato, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1980;
    (7) Petaluma, Calif., 1953; photorevised 1981;
    (8) Point Reyes NE., CA, 1995;
    (9) Tomales, CA, 1995;
    (10) Bodega Head, Calif., 1972;
    (11) Valley Ford, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1971; and
    (12) Two Rock, Calif., 1954; photorevised 1971.
    (c) Boundary. The Petaluma Gap viticultural area is located in 
Sonoma and Marin Counties in California. The boundary of the Petaluma 
Gap viticultural area is as described below:
    (1) The beginning point is on the Cotati map at the intersection of 
Grange Road, Crane Canyon Road, and the northern boundary of section 
16, T6N/R7W. From the beginning point, proceed southeast in a straight 
line for 1 mile, crossing over Pressley Road, to the intersection of 
the 900-foot elevation contour and the eastern boundary of section 16, 
T6N/R7W; then
    (2) Proceed east-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.5 mile, 
crossing onto the Glen Ellen map, to the terminus of an unnamed, 
unimproved road known locally as Summit View Ranch Road, just north of 
the southern boundary of section 15, T6N/R7N; then
    (3) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the 
intersection of Crane Creek and the 1,200-foot elevation contour, 
section 22, T6N/R7W; then
    (4) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 2.9 miles to the 
marked 2,271-foot peak on Sonoma Mountain, T6N/R6W; then
    (5) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 10.5 miles, crossing 
over the northeastern corner of the Petaluma River map and onto the 
Sears Point map, to the marked 682-foot summit of Wildcat Mountain; 
then
    (6) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line for 3.3 miles to 
the intersection of State Highway 121 (also known locally as Arnold 
Drive) and State Highway 37 (also known locally as Sears Point Road); 
then
    (7) Proceed east-northeasterly along State Highway 37/Sears Point 
Road for approximately 0.1 mile to Tolay Creek; then
    (8) Proceed generally south along the meandering Tolay Creek for 
3.9 miles, crossing onto the Petaluma Point map, to the mouth of the 
creek at San Pablo Bay; then
    (9) Proceed southwesterly along the shore of San Pablo Bay for 2.7 
miles, crossing the mouth of the Petaluma River, and continuing 
southeasterly along the bay's shoreline to Petaluma Point; then
    (10) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line for 6.3 miles, 
crossing over the northeastern corner of the Novato map and onto the 
Petaluma River map, to the marked 1,558-foot peak of Burdell Mountain; 
then
    (11) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.3 miles to the 
marked 1,193-foot peak; then
    (12) Proceed west-southwesterly in a straight line for 2.2 miles, 
crossing onto the Petaluma map, to the marked 1,209-foot peak; then
    (13) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the 
marked 1,296-foot peak; then
    (14) Proceed west in a straight line for 1 mile to the marked 
1,257-foot peak on Red Hill in section 31, T4N/R7W; then
    (15) Proceed southwest in a straight line for 2.9 miles to the 
marked 1,532-foot peak on Hicks Mountain; then
    (16) Proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line for 2.7 miles, 
crossing onto the Point Reyes NE map, to the marked 1,087-foot peak; 
then
    (17) Proceed north-northwesterly in a straight line for 1.5 miles 
to the marked 1,379-foot peak; then
    (18) Proceed west-northwesterly in a straight line for 2.9 miles to 
the marked 935-foot peak; then
    (19) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 1.8 miles to the 
marked 804-foot peak; then
    (20) Proceed west-northwesterly in a straight line for 3.1 miles, 
crossing onto the Tomales map, to the marked 741-foot peak; then
    (21) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line for 1.3 miles to 
benchmark (BM) 10 on State Highway 1, at the mouth of Walker Creek in 
Tomales Bay; then
    (22) Proceed southwesterly, then northwesterly along the shoreline 
of Tomales Bay to Sand Point, on Bodega Bay, and continuing northerly 
along the shoreline of Bodega Bay, crossing over the Valley Ford map 
and onto the Bodega Head map, circling the shoreline of Bodega Harbor 
to the Pacific Ocean and continuing northerly along the shoreline of 
the Pacific Ocean to the mouth of Salmon Creek, for a total of 19.5 
miles; then
    (23) Proceed easterly along Salmon Creek for 9.6 miles, crossing 
onto the Valley Ford map and passing Nolan Creek, to the second 
intermittent stream in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (24) Proceed east in a straight line for 1 mile to vertical angle 
benchmark (VABM) 724 in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (25) Proceed south-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.8 mile to 
BM 61 on an unmarked light duty road known locally as Freestone Valley 
Ford Road in the Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (26) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the 
marked 448-foot peak in the Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/
R10W; then
    (27) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.1 mile to the 
northern terminus of an unnamed, unimproved road in the Ca[ntilde]ada 
de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (28) Proceed northeasterly, then southeasterly for 0.9 mile along 
the unnamed, unimproved road to the 400-foot elevation contour in the 
Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (29) Proceed easterly along the meandering 400-foot elevation 
contour for 6.7 miles, crossing onto the Two Rocks map, to Burnside 
Road in the Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (30) Proceed south on Burnside Road for 0.1 mile to an unnamed 
medium duty road known locally as Bloomfield Road in the Ca[ntilde]ada 
de Pogolimi land grant,T6N/R9W; then
    (31) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the 
marked 610-foot peak in the Blucher land grant, T6N/R9W; then
    (32) Proceed east-southeasterly in a straight line for 0.8 mile to 
the marked 641-foot peak in the Blucher land grant, T6N/R9W; then
    (33) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 1.2 miles, crossing 
through the intersection of an intermittent stream with Canfield Road, 
to the common Range 8/9 boundary; then
    (34) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the 
marked 542-foot peak; then
    (35) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the 
intersection of an unnamed, unimproved road (leading to four barn-like 
structures) known locally as Carniglia Lane and an unnamed medium duty 
road known locally as Roblar Road, T6N/R8W; then
    (36) Proceed south in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the marked 
678-foot peak, T6N/R8W; then
    (37) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.8 mile to the 
marked 599-foot peak, T5N/R8W; then
    (38) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.7 mile to the 
marked 604-foot peak, T5N/R8W; then

[[Page 74987]]

    (39) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line for 0.9 mile, 
crossing onto the Cotati map, to the intersection of Meacham Road and 
an unnamed light duty road leading to a series of barn-like structures, 
T5N/R8W; then
    (40) Proceed north-northeast along Meacham Road for 0.8 mile to 
Stony Point Road, T5N/R8W; then
    (41) Proceed southeast along Stony Point Road for 1.1 miles to the 
200-foot elevation contour, T5N/R8W; then
    (42) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the 
intersection of an intermittent creek with U.S. Highway 101, T5N/R8W; 
then
    (43) Proceed north along U.S. Highway 101 for 1.5 miles to State 
Highway 116 (also known locally as Graverstein Highway), T6N/R8W; then
    (44) Proceed northeast in a straight line for 3.4 miles to the 
intersection of Crane Creek and Petaluma Hill Road, T6N/R7W; then
    (45) Proceed easterly along Crane Creek for 0.8 mile to the 
intersection of Crane Creek and the 200-foot elevation line, T6N/R7W; 
then
    (46) Proceed northwesterly along the 200-foot elevation contour for 
1 mile to the intersection of the contour line and an intermittent 
stream just south of Crane Canyon Road, T6N/R7W; then
    (47) Proceed east then northeasterly along the northern branch of 
the intermittent stream for 0.3 mile to the intersection of the stream 
with Crane Canyon Road, T6N/R7W; then
    (48) Proceed northeasterly along Crane Canyon Road for 1.2 miles, 
returning to the beginning point.

    Signed: October 21, 2016.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-25972 Filed 10-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-31-P