Establishment of the Petaluma Gap Viticultural Area and Modification of the North Coast Viticultural Area, 57659-57664 [2017-26410]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
vintners to use ‘‘Outer Coastal Plain’’ as
an appellation of origin for wines made
primarily from grapes grown within the
expansion area if the wines meet the
eligibility requirements for the
appellation.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulation imposes no new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of an AVA name
would be the result of a proprietor’s
efforts and consumer acceptance of
wines from that area. Therefore, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 12866 of
September 30, 1993. Therefore, no
regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Dana Register of the Regulations and
Rulings Division drafted this final rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter
I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
Signed: May 2, 2017.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
2. Section 9.207 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)
introductory text and (b)(6) and (7);
■ b. Adding paragraphs (b)(8) through
(10);
■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(16) and
(17);
■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(18)
through (22) as paragraphs (c)(21)
through (25); and
■ e. Adding new paragraphs (c)(18)
through (20).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
■
■
§ 9.207
the Outer Coastal Plain viticultural area
are 10 United States Geological Survey
topographic maps. They are titled:
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Cape May, New Jersey, 1981,
1:100,000 scale;
(7) Dover, Delaware–New Jersey–
Maryland, 1984, 1:100,000 scale;
(8) Freehold, New Jersey, 2014,
1:24,000 scale;
(9) Marlboro, New Jersey, 2014,
1:24,000 scale; and
(10) Keyport, New Jersey–New York,
2014, 1:24,000 scale.
(c) * * *
(16) Continue northeasterly on CR
537, crossing onto the Freehold, New
Jersey, map, to the intersection of CR
537 (known locally as W. Main Street)
and State Route 79 (known locally as S.
Main Street) in Freehold; then
(17) Proceed northeasterly, then
northerly, along State Route 79, crossing
onto the Marlboro, New Jersey, map to
the intersection of State Route 79 and
Pleasant Valley Road in Wickatunk;
then
(18) Proceed northeasterly, then
southeasterly along Pleasant Valley
Road to the road’s intersection with
Schank Road, south of Pleasant Valley;
then
(19) Proceed easterly along Schank
Road to the road’s intersection with
Holmdel Road; then
(20) Proceed northerly along Holmdel
Road, crossing onto the Keyport, New
Jersey–New York map, to the road’s
intersection with the Garden State
Parkway, north of Crawford Corners;
then
*
*
*
*
*
Approved: October 19, 2017.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2017–26414 Filed 12–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
Outer Coastal Plain.
*
*
*
*
(b) Approved maps. The appropriate
maps for determining the boundary of
13:34 Dec 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB–2016–0009; T.D. TTB–149;
Re: Notice No. 163]
RIN 1513–AC34
Establishment of the Petaluma Gap
Viticultural Area and Modification of
the North Coast Viticultural Area
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
AGENCY:
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the
approximately 202,476-acre ‘‘Petaluma
Gap’’ viticultural area in portions of
Sonoma and Marin Counties in
California. The viticultural area lies
entirely within the larger existing North
Coast viticultural area and partially
within the established Sonoma Coast
viticultural area. TTB also modifies the
boundary of the North Coast viticultural
area to eliminate a partial overlap with
the Petaluma Gap 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.
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective
January 8, 2018.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kaori Flores, Regulations and Rulings
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box
12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202)
453–1039.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
57659
Sfmt 4700
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (FAA Act), 27
U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to prescribe regulations
for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits,
and malt beverages. The FAA Act
provides that these regulations should,
among other things, prohibit consumer
deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that
labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity
and quality of the product. The Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The
Secretary has delegated various
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
57660
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
authorities through Treasury
Department Order 120–01, dated
December 10, 2013 (superseding
Treasury Department 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) allows the establishment of
definitive viticultural areas and the use
of their names as appellations of origin
on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) 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.
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:34 Dec 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
and distinguish it from adjacent areas
outside the proposed AVA boundary;
• A copy of 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.
Petaluma Gap Petition
TTB received a petition from Patrick
L. Shabram, on behalf of the Petaluma
Gap Winegrowers Alliance, proposing
the establishment of the ‘‘Petaluma
Gap’’ AVA and the modification of the
boundary of the established multicounty North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30).
The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is
located in portions of Sonoma and
Marin Counties, California. The
proposed AVA covers approximately
202,476 acres and contains 80
commercially-producing vineyards
covering a total of approximately 4,000
acres, as well as 9 bonded wineries.
According to the petition, the
distinguishing features of the proposed
Petaluma Gap AVA include its
topography and wind speed.
The proposed AVA lies in southern
Sonoma County and northern Marin
County, has a northwest-southeast
orientation, and extends from the
Pacific Ocean to San Pablo Bay. As
proposed, a small portion of the
Petaluma Gap AVA would overlap a
portion of the established North Coast
AVA. To eliminate the potential
overlap, the petitioner also proposed
modifying the boundary of the North
Coast AVA to eliminate the potential
overlap and place the proposed
Petaluma Gap AVA entirely within the
North Coast AVA. The proposed
modification would increase the size of
the 3 million-acre North Coast AVA by
approximately 28,077 acres. The
petition provided evidence that the
proposed expansion area shares the
main characteristic of the North Coast
AVA—the marine climate influence that
moderates growing season temperatures
in the area. The expansion area was also
shown to have similar growing degree
day accumulations to the North Coast
AVA and to be within the range of
Winkler scale regions that characterizes
the rest of the North Coast AVA.
The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is
located in the southern portion of the
established Sonoma Coast AVA and
shares the marine-influenced climate
and coastal fog of the established AVA.
As proposed, the Petaluma Gap AVA
would also partially overlap the
southwestern boundary of the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
established Sonoma Coast AVA (27 CFR
9.116), leaving the Marin County
portion of the proposed AVA, consisting
of approximately 68,130 acres, outside
of the Sonoma Coast AVA. The petition
did not propose to modify the boundary
of the Sonoma Coast AVA for several
reasons, including the lack of use of the
name ‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ to describe lands
in Marin County. Additionally, the
evidence in the petition demonstrated
that both the Sonoma County and the
Marin County portions of the proposed
Petaluma Gap AVA share similar
topographic characteristics and similar
wind speeds, so excluding Marin
County entirely would have affected the
integrity of the proposed AVA. Further,
TTB notes that removing the proposed
Petaluma Gap 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 region
removed from the Sonoma Coast AVA
would no longer be eligible to be labeled
with that AVA as an appellation of
origin.
According to the petition, the
distinguishing features of the proposed
Petaluma Gap AVA are its topography
and wind speeds. The terrain consists of
highlands characterized by low, rolling
hills not exceeding 600 feet, except in
a few places within the ridgelines that
form the proposed northern, eastern,
and southern boundaries. Within the
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, there are
also small valleys and fluvial terraces,
with flat land along the Petaluma River,
especially east of the City of Petaluma
and near the mouth of San Pablo Bay.
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
To the south of the proposed AVA, the
elevations can exceed 1,000 feet.
The low elevations and rolling hills of
the proposed Petaluma Gap 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. Although marine breezes are
present within the proposed Petaluma
Gap AVA during most of the day, the
wind speeds increase significantly in
the afternoon hours because the 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 effect of these prolonged high
wind speeds on grapes is a reduction in
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.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 163 in the
Federal Register on October 28, 2016,
(81 FR 74979), proposing to establish
the Petaluma Gap AVA and modify the
boundary of the North Coast AVA. In
the document, TTB summarized the
evidence from the petition regarding the
name, boundary, and distinguishing
features for the proposed viticultural
area. For a description of the evidence
relating to the name, boundary, and
distinguishing features of the proposed
viticultural area, and for a comparison
of the distinguishing features of the
proposed viticultural area to the
surrounding areas, see Notice No. 163.
In Notice No. 163, TTB solicited
comments on the accuracy of the name,
boundary, climatic, and other required
information submitted in support of the
petition. In addition, given the proposed
AVA’s location within the existing
North Coast AVA and in the southern
portion of the Sonoma Coast AVA, TTB
solicited comments on whether the
evidence submitted in the petition
regarding the distinguishing features of
the proposed AVA sufficiently
differentiates it from the two established
AVAs. TTB also asked for comments on
whether the geographical features of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:34 Dec 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
proposed viticultural area are so
distinguishable from the existing North
Coast and Sonoma Coast AVAs that the
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA should
not be part of one or either established
AVA.
Additionally, TTB asked for
comments on the proposed modification
of the North Coast AVA and whether the
evidence presented in the proposed
Petaluma Gap AVA petition was
sufficient to warrant expansion of the
North Coast AVA to include the entire
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA. Finally,
TTB asked for comments on whether the
evidence submitted in the petition
supported allowing the partial overlap
between the proposed Petaluma Gap
AVA and the established Sonoma Coast
AVA. The comment period on Notice
No. 163 closed on December 27, 2016.
In response to Notice No. 163, TTB
received a total of 11 comments, all of
which supported the establishment of
the Petaluma Gap AVA and the
expansion of the North Coast AVA
boundary. Commenters were primarily
local residents, vineyard owners, and
members of the wine industry. The
commenters generally supported the
proposed AVA due to the rolling terrain
and distinct microclimate, featuring
distinct temperatures, moderate rainfall,
the presence of fog, and wind gusts.
Other comments emphasized the
distinct flavor of the wines from the
Petaluma Gap region and stated that
establishing the Petaluma Gap AVA will
help consumers to buy and identify
wine accurately. Several comments
received during the comment period
stated that the proposed AVA has
characteristics that are distinct from the
larger Sonoma Coast AVA and warrant
its recognition as a sub-AVA. However,
none of the commenters specifically
stated that the proposed Petaluma Gap
AVA should be completely removed
from the Sonoma Coast AVA. TTB
received no comments in opposition of
the Petaluma Gap AVA, as proposed,
and no comments opposing the
proposed North Coast AVA boundary
modification or the proposed partial
overlap with the Sonoma Coast AVA.
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition
and of the comments received in
response to Notice No. 163, TTB finds
that the evidence provided by the
petitioner supports the establishment of
the approximately 202,476-acre
Petaluma Gap AVA and the
modification of the boundary of the
North Coast AVA. Accordingly, under
the authority of the FAA Act, section
1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, and part 4 of the TTB regulations,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57661
TTB establishes the ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’
AVA in Sonoma and Marin Counties, in
California.
TTB has also determined that the land
within the Petaluma Gap AVA will
remain part of the larger North Coast
AVA. The Petaluma Gap AVA shares
the basic viticultural feature of the
North Coast AVA, which consists of the
marine influence that moderates
growing season temperatures in the
area. Therefore, TTB is recognizing the
Petaluma Gap AVA as a distinct AVA
within the larger North Coast AVA.
Furthermore, TTB modifies the
boundary of the North Coast AVA as
described in Notice No. 163. TTB has
determined that the expansion area has
the similar marine-influenced climate of
the North Coast AVA. Therefore, TTB is
expanding the North Coast to include all
of the Petaluma Gap AVA. This change
is effective 30 days from the date of
publication of this document. TTB is
also allowing the partial overlap of the
Petaluma Gap AVA with the Sonoma
Coast AVA. The Marin County portion
of the Petaluma Gap AVA will remain
outside of the Sonoma Coast AVA,
while the Sonoma County portion will
be within the Sonoma Coast AVA. TTB
allows 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.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary
description of the Petaluma Gap AVA
and the modified boundary of the North
Coast AVA in the regulatory text
published at the end of this final rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required
maps, and they are listed below in the
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. With the
establishment of this AVA, its name,
‘‘Petaluma Gap,’’ will be recognized as
a name of viticultural significance under
27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the
regulation clarifies this point. Once this
final rule becomes effective, wine
bottlers using the name ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’
in a brand name, including a trademark,
or in another label reference as to the
origin of the wine, will have to ensure
that the product is eligible to use the
viticultural name as an appellation of
origin. The establishment of the
Petaluma Gap AVA will allow vintners
to use ‘‘Petaluma Gap’’ as an appellation
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
57662
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
of origin for wines made from grapes
grown within the Petaluma Gap AVA if
the wines meet the eligibility
requirements for the appellation.
The establishment of the Petaluma
Gap AVA will not affect any existing
viticultural area, and any bottlers using
‘‘North Coast AVA’’ as an appellation of
origin or in a brand name for wines
made from grapes grown within the
North Coast AVA will not be affected by
the establishment of this new AVA. The
establishment of the AVA will allow
vintners to use ‘‘Petaluma Gap and
‘‘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.
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.
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The regulation imposes no new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of a viticultural
area name would be the result of a
proprietor’s efforts and consumer
acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rule
is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866 of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:34 Dec 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
September 30, 1993. Therefore, no
regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Kaori Flores of the Regulations and
Rulings Division drafted this final rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter
I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Section 9.30 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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 § 9.261 to read as follows:
§ 9.261
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:
(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 in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (48) of this
section:
(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; the
(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
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
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 1,193foot 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:34 Dec 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57663
(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
(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.
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
57664
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Signed: June 14, 2017.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: October 26, 2017.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2017–26410 Filed 12–6–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
29 CFR Part 2550
[Application Number D–11712; D–11713; D–
11850]
ZRIN 1210–ZA27
18-Month Extension of Transition
Period and Delay of Applicability
Dates; Best Interest Contract
Exemption (PTE 2016–01); Class
Exemption for Principal Transactions
in Certain Assets Between Investment
Advice Fiduciaries and Employee
Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE 2016–02);
Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84–
24 for Certain Transactions Involving
Insurance Agents and Brokers,
Pension Consultants, Insurance
Companies, and Investment Company
Principal Underwriters (PTE 84–24);
Correction
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Technical corrections.
AGENCY:
This document corrects two
errors in the preamble of a document
that appeared in the Federal Register on
November 29, 2017.
DATES: Issuance date: The correction is
issued December 7, 2017 without
further action or notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Shiker or Susan Wilker, (202)
693–8824, Office of Exemption
Determinations, Employee Benefits
Security Administration.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
I. Background
There is a clerical error in footnote 66
in FR Doc. 2017–25760 (published
November 29, 2017 at 82 FR 56545),
entitled ‘‘18-Month Extension of
Transition Period and Delay of
Applicability Dates; Best Interest
Contract Exemption (PTE 2016–01);
Class Exemption for Principal
Transactions in Certain Assets Between
Investment Advice Fiduciaries and
Employee Benefit Plans and IRAs (PTE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:34 Dec 06, 2017
Jkt 244001
2016–02); Prohibited Transaction
Exemption 84–24 for Certain
Transactions Involving Insurance
Agents and Brokers, Pension
Consultants, Insurance Companies, and
Investment Company Principal
Underwriters (PTE 84–24).’’
Footnote 66 is situated in the
regulatory impact analysis section of the
preamble. The textual discussion
surrounding footnote 66 focuses on
regulatory alternatives considered, but
rejected by the Department of Labor
(Department). Footnote 66 identifies
certain public commenters who support
a contingent or tiered delay, two
regulatory alternatives the Department
declined to adopt. Due to a clerical
error, the footnote also inadvertently
includes the names of public
commenters who do not support a
contingent or tiered delay. This
document corrects that error.
In addition, there is text missing in
the portion of the preamble that
discusses the Congressional Review Act
(CRA). The Department inadvertently
omitted a discussion of the basis for
making the delay effective more quickly
than the 60-day period generally
required by the CRA for major rules.
This document corrects that error.
II. Correction of Errors
In FR Doc. 2017–25760 of November
29, 2017 (82 FR 56545), make the
following preamble corrections:
1. On page 56557, second column,
correct footnote 66 to read ‘‘See, e.g.,
Comment Letter #121 (HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.); Comment Letter
#124 (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP).’’
2. On page 56559, second column,
add the following language to the end of
Congressional Review Act discussion:
‘‘Although the CRA generally requires
that major rules become effective no
sooner than 60 days after Congress
receives the required report, the CRA
allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner, if the agency makes a
good cause finding that such public
procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. For the same reasons
underlying the good cause finding in the
April Delay Rule, the Department has
made such a good cause finding for this
rule. See 82 FR 16902, 16915 (April 7,
2017).’’
Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of
December, 2017.
Jeanne Klinefelter Wilson,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration, Department of
Labor.
[FR Doc. 2017–26478 Filed 12–5–17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 950
[SATS No: WY–045–FOR; Docket ID: OSM–
2013–0002; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000
189S180110; S2D2S SS08011000
SX064A000 18XS501520]
Wyoming Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment with certain exceptions.
AGENCY:
We are issuing a final
decision on an amendment to the
Wyoming regulatory program (the
‘‘Wyoming program’’) under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (‘‘SMCRA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’). Our
decision approves in part and
disapproves in part the amendment.
Wyoming proposes both revisions of
and additions to its coal rules and
regulations concerning ownership and
control, adds a provision concerning
variable topsoil depths during
reclamation, and addresses four
deficiencies that were identified by the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSMRE) during the
review of a previous program
amendment (WY–038–FOR; Docket ID
No. OSM–2009–0012). Wyoming
revised its program to be consistent with
the corresponding Federal regulations
and SMCRA, clarify ambiguities, and
improve operational efficiency.
DATES: The effective date is January 8,
2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Fleischman, Chief, Denver Field
Division, Telephone: 307–261–6550,
Internet address: jfleischman@
OSMRE.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background on the Wyoming Program
II. Submission of the Proposed
Amendment
III. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement’s (OSMRE’s) Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSMRE’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Wyoming
Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its State program
includes, among other things, State laws
and regulations that govern surface coal
E:\FR\FM\07DER1.SGM
07DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57659-57664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26410]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2016-0009; T.D. TTB-149; Re: Notice No. 163]
RIN 1513-AC34
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: Final rule; Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes
the approximately 202,476-acre ``Petaluma Gap'' viticultural area in
portions of Sonoma and Marin Counties in California. The viticultural
area lies entirely within the larger existing North Coast viticultural
area and partially within the established Sonoma Coast viticultural
area. TTB also modifies the boundary of the North Coast viticultural
area to eliminate a partial overlap with the Petaluma Gap 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.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 8, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kaori Flores, Regulations and Rulings
Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW.,
Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone (202) 453-1039.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various
[[Page 57660]]
authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December
10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Department 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) allows the
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) 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 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 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;
A copy of 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.
Petaluma Gap Petition
TTB received a petition from Patrick L. Shabram, on behalf of the
Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance, proposing the establishment of the
``Petaluma Gap'' AVA and the modification of the boundary of the
established multi-county North Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed
Petaluma Gap AVA is located in portions of Sonoma and Marin Counties,
California. The proposed AVA covers approximately 202,476 acres and
contains 80 commercially-producing vineyards covering a total of
approximately 4,000 acres, as well as 9 bonded wineries. According to
the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Petaluma Gap
AVA include its topography and wind speed.
The proposed AVA lies in southern Sonoma County and northern Marin
County, has a northwest-southeast orientation, and extends from the
Pacific Ocean to San Pablo Bay. As proposed, a small portion of the
Petaluma Gap AVA would overlap a portion of the established North Coast
AVA. To eliminate the potential overlap, the petitioner also proposed
modifying the boundary of the North Coast AVA to eliminate the
potential overlap and place the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA entirely
within the North Coast AVA. The proposed modification would increase
the size of the 3 million-acre North Coast AVA by approximately 28,077
acres. The petition provided evidence that the proposed expansion area
shares the main characteristic of the North Coast AVA--the marine
climate influence that moderates growing season temperatures in the
area. The expansion area was also shown to have similar growing degree
day accumulations to the North Coast AVA and to be within the range of
Winkler scale regions that characterizes the rest of the North Coast
AVA.
The proposed Petaluma Gap AVA is located in the southern portion of
the established Sonoma Coast AVA and shares the marine-influenced
climate and coastal fog of the established AVA. As proposed, the
Petaluma Gap AVA would also partially overlap the southwestern boundary
of the established Sonoma Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.116), leaving the Marin
County portion of the proposed AVA, consisting of approximately 68,130
acres, outside of the Sonoma Coast AVA. The petition did not propose to
modify the boundary of the Sonoma Coast AVA for several reasons,
including the lack of use of the name ``Sonoma Coast'' to describe
lands in Marin County. Additionally, the evidence in the petition
demonstrated that both the Sonoma County and the Marin County portions
of the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA share similar topographic
characteristics and similar wind speeds, so excluding Marin County
entirely would have affected the integrity of the proposed AVA.
Further, TTB notes that removing the proposed Petaluma Gap 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 region removed from the Sonoma Coast
AVA would no longer be eligible to be labeled with that AVA as an
appellation of origin.
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA are its topography and wind speeds. The
terrain consists of highlands characterized by low, rolling hills not
exceeding 600 feet, except in a few places within the ridgelines that
form the proposed northern, eastern, and southern boundaries. Within
the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA, there are also small valleys and fluvial
terraces, with flat land along the Petaluma River, especially east of
the City of Petaluma and near the mouth of San Pablo Bay. 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.
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.
[[Page 57661]]
To the south of the proposed AVA, the elevations can exceed 1,000 feet.
The low elevations and rolling hills of the proposed Petaluma Gap
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. Although marine breezes are present
within the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA during most of the day, the wind
speeds increase significantly in the afternoon hours because the 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 effect of these prolonged high wind speeds on grapes is a
reduction in 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.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 163 in the Federal Register on October 28,
2016, (81 FR 74979), proposing to establish the Petaluma Gap AVA and
modify the boundary of the North Coast AVA. In the document, TTB
summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the name, boundary,
and distinguishing features for the proposed viticultural area. For a
description of the evidence relating to the name, boundary, and
distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural area, and for a
comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed viticultural
area to the surrounding areas, see Notice No. 163.
In Notice No. 163, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the
name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in
support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed AVA's location
within the existing North Coast AVA and in the southern portion of the
Sonoma Coast AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence
submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the
proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the two established
AVAs. TTB also asked for comments on whether the geographical features
of the proposed viticultural area are so distinguishable from the
existing North Coast and Sonoma Coast AVAs that the proposed Petaluma
Gap AVA should not be part of one or either established AVA.
Additionally, TTB asked for comments on the proposed modification
of the North Coast AVA and whether the evidence presented in the
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA petition was sufficient to warrant expansion
of the North Coast AVA to include the entire proposed Petaluma Gap AVA.
Finally, TTB asked for comments on whether the evidence submitted in
the petition supported allowing the partial overlap between the
proposed Petaluma Gap AVA and the established Sonoma Coast AVA. The
comment period on Notice No. 163 closed on December 27, 2016.
In response to Notice No. 163, TTB received a total of 11 comments,
all of which supported the establishment of the Petaluma Gap AVA and
the expansion of the North Coast AVA boundary. Commenters were
primarily local residents, vineyard owners, and members of the wine
industry. The commenters generally supported the proposed AVA due to
the rolling terrain and distinct microclimate, featuring distinct
temperatures, moderate rainfall, the presence of fog, and wind gusts.
Other comments emphasized the distinct flavor of the wines from the
Petaluma Gap region and stated that establishing the Petaluma Gap AVA
will help consumers to buy and identify wine accurately. Several
comments received during the comment period stated that the proposed
AVA has characteristics that are distinct from the larger Sonoma Coast
AVA and warrant its recognition as a sub-AVA. However, none of the
commenters specifically stated that the proposed Petaluma Gap AVA
should be completely removed from the Sonoma Coast AVA. TTB received no
comments in opposition of the Petaluma Gap AVA, as proposed, and no
comments opposing the proposed North Coast AVA boundary modification or
the proposed partial overlap with the Sonoma Coast AVA.
TTB Determination
After careful review of the petition and of the comments received
in response to Notice No. 163, TTB finds that the evidence provided by
the petitioner supports the establishment of the approximately 202,476-
acre Petaluma Gap AVA and the modification of the boundary of the North
Coast AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section
1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and part 4 of the TTB
regulations, TTB establishes the ``Petaluma Gap'' AVA in Sonoma and
Marin Counties, in California.
TTB has also determined that the land within the Petaluma Gap AVA
will remain part of the larger North Coast AVA. The Petaluma Gap AVA
shares the basic viticultural feature of the North Coast AVA, which
consists of the marine influence that moderates growing season
temperatures in the area. Therefore, TTB is recognizing the Petaluma
Gap AVA as a distinct AVA within the larger North Coast AVA.
Furthermore, TTB modifies the boundary of the North Coast AVA as
described in Notice No. 163. TTB has determined that the expansion area
has the similar marine-influenced climate of the North Coast AVA.
Therefore, TTB is expanding the North Coast to include all of the
Petaluma Gap AVA. This change is effective 30 days from the date of
publication of this document. TTB is also allowing the partial overlap
of the Petaluma Gap AVA with the Sonoma Coast AVA. The Marin County
portion of the Petaluma Gap AVA will remain outside of the Sonoma Coast
AVA, while the Sonoma County portion will be within the Sonoma Coast
AVA. TTB allows 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.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary description of the Petaluma Gap AVA and
the modified boundary of the North Coast AVA in the regulatory text
published at the end of this final rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the 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. With the establishment of this AVA, its name,
``Petaluma Gap,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural
significance under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the regulation
clarifies this point. Once this final rule becomes effective, wine
bottlers using the name ``Petaluma Gap'' in a brand name, including a
trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine,
will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the
viticultural name as an appellation of origin. The establishment of the
Petaluma Gap AVA will allow vintners to use ``Petaluma Gap'' as an
appellation
[[Page 57662]]
of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the Petaluma Gap AVA
if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
The establishment of the Petaluma Gap AVA will not affect any
existing viticultural area, and any bottlers using ``North Coast AVA''
as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from
grapes grown within the North Coast AVA will not be affected by the
establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the AVA will allow
vintners to use ``Petaluma Gap and ``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.
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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a
viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts
and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Kaori Flores of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this
final rule.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends 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. [thinsp]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. 9.261 to read as follows:
Sec. [thinsp]9.261 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:
(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 in paragraphs (c)(1) through (48)
of this section:
(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; the
(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
[[Page 57663]]
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
(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.
[[Page 57664]]
Signed: June 14, 2017.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: October 26, 2017.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2017-26410 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P