Proposed Establishment of the West Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area, 62750-62757 [2018-26321]

Agencies

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

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62750-62757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26321]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2018-0008; Notice No. 177]
RIN 1513-AC40


Proposed Establishment of the West Sonoma 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 141,846-acre ``West Sonoma Coast'' viticultural area in 
Sonoma County, California. The proposed viticultural area lies entirely 
within the established Sonoma Coast and North Coast viticultural areas 
and contains the established Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area. TTB 
designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the 
origin of

[[Page 62751]]

their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may 
purchase. TTB invites comments on this proposed addition to its 
regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments on this notice to one of the 
following addresses:
     Internet: https://www.regulations.gov (via the online 
comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2018-0008 
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 notice for specific 
instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for 
information on how to request a public hearing or view or obtain copies 
of the petition and supporting materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and 
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 
Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas

TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe 
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt 
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among 
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading 
statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with 
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act 
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various 
authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 7, 
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 the 
wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to 
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and 
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of 
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine 
produced in that area.

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (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 
the 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 affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical 
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and 
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
     The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of 
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
     A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA 
boundary based on USGS map markings.

West Sonoma Coast Petition

    TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram, on behalf of the West 
Sonoma Coast Vintners, proposing the establishment of the ``West Sonoma 
Coast'' AVA. The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is located within 
Sonoma County, California. The proposed AVA lies entirely within the 
established Sonoma Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.116) and North Coast AVA (27 CFR 
9.30) and entirely overlaps the smaller established Fort Ross-Seaview 
AVA (27 CFR 9.221). The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA contains 141,846 
acres, with approximately 47 commercially-producing vineyards covering 
approximately 1,028 acres distributed throughout the proposed AVA. 
Grape varieties planted within the proposed AVA include Pinot Noir and 
Chardonnay.
    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the 
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA include its topography, geology, and 
climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to 
the proposed AVA contained in this document are from the petition for 
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and its supporting exhibits.

Name Evidence

    The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is located within the western 
portion of Sonoma County. The petition states that Sonoma County is 
typically referred to in terms of ``east'' and ``west,'' and that terms 
such as ``West County,'' ``West Sonoma,'' and ``Western Sonoma'' are 
frequently used to describe the region that includes the proposed AVA. 
For example, the school district that serves the proposed AVA is the 
West Sonoma County Union High School District.\1\ A newspaper that 
serves the town of Sebastopol and points west, including the region of 
the proposed AVA, is called the Sonoma West Times & News.\2\ 
Additionally, in his book about wineries and vineyards along the 
Russian River, Steve Heimoff refers to residents of the area as ``West 
Sonomans.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ West Sonoma County Union High School District (May 7, 2018), 
https://wscuhsd.k12.ca.us/.
    \2\ Sonoma West Times & News (May 16, 2018), https://www.sonomawest.com/.
    \3\ Heimoff, Steve. A Wine Journey Along the Russian River 
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition states that although the terms ``West Sonoma'' and 
``Western Sonoma'' apply to the region of the

[[Page 62752]]

proposed AVA, both terms encompass a broader area than just the extreme 
coastal region covered by the proposed AVA. Therefore, the petition 
states that ``West Sonoma Coast'' is a more accurate and precise name 
for the proposed AVA, as this name conveys the idea that the proposed 
AVA is located both within the coastal region of the area known as West 
Sonoma and also within the western portion of the larger established 
Sonoma Coast AVA. The petition included several examples of the use of 
``West Sonoma Coast'' to refer to the region of the proposed AVA. For 
example, a 2013 Wall Street Journal article notes, ``It's only in the 
last 20 years or so that the West Sonoma Coast has been recognized as a 
superb region for Burgundian varietals of Pinot Noir and Chardonnay.'' 
\4\ A 2014 article in Forbes is titled ``California's Edgiest Wine 
Region: Western Sonoma Coast.'' \5\ A 2015 article for Wine and Spirits 
refers to ``the region unofficially known as `west [sic] Sonoma 
Coast'.'' \6\ Finally, the petition included a real estate listing for 
``West Sonoma Coast ranch land'' for sale in the town of Annapolis, 
California, which is within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ McInerney, Jay. ``West Sonoma Coast Wines Are on the Rise,'' 
The Wall Street Journal (July 18, 2013).
    \5\ Bell, Katie Kelly. ``California's Edgiest Wine Region: 
Western Sonoma Coast,'' Forbes (March 6, 2014).
    \6\ Brown, Elaine Chukan. ``Sonoma's Far Coast: A haven for 
pinot noir,'' Wines and Spirits (August 31, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boundary Evidence

    The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA encompasses the mountainous 
terrain along the Pacific coastline of Sonoma County. The Pacific Ocean 
forms the western boundary of the proposed AVA, and the shared Sonoma-
Mendocino County line forms the northern boundary. The petition notes 
that the proposed AVA does not extend farther north because use of the 
term ``Sonoma'' does not extend into Mendocino County. The eastern 
boundary follows a series of elevation contours, creeks, and U.S.G.S. 
map section lines to separate the proposed AVA from the more inland 
region of Sonoma County that has lower elevations and warmer climates. 
The region east of the proposed AVA includes the established Russian 
River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.66) and Northern Sonoma AVA (27 CFR 9.70), 
both of which have boundaries that are concurrent with portions of the 
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA's eastern boundary. The southern 
boundary of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is shared with the 
northern boundary of the Petaluma Gap AVA (27 CFR 9.261), which has 
generally lower elevations.

Distinguishing Features

    The distinguishing features of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 
are its topography, geology, and climate. The petition included 
detailed information and supporting evidence regarding the 
distinguishing features of only the regions to the east and south of 
the proposed AVA. The Pacific Ocean is to the west of the proposed AVA 
and cannot be used for viticultural purposes. The petition did include 
a broad summary of the characteristics of the region to the north of 
the proposed AVA. TTB is not including the information in this document 
because the petition did not provide evidence to support the claims. 
However, TTB does not consider information from that region to be 
necessary because the term ``Sonoma'' is not used to describe the 
region to the north of the proposed AVA, within Mendocino County. 
Therefore, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA could not extend farther 
north even if the distinguishing features of both regions were similar 
because TTB regulations require the proposed AVA name to apply to the 
entire proposed AVA. See 27 CFR 9.12(a)(1).
Topography
    The petition states that the terrain of the proposed West Sonoma 
Coast is characterized by the steep, rugged mountains and ridgelines 
that form the Coastal Ranges, which run parallel to the coastline. Very 
little area within the proposed AVA contains slopes of less than 5 
percent, and the summits of the coastal mountains can exceed 1,000 
feet. In the coastal regions of California, elevations below 900 feet 
are below the fog line and are typically exposed to heavy marine fog, 
which can lower temperatures and impede photosynthesis. However, the 
petition states that within the proposed AVA, the ridgelines of the 
Coastal Ranges form protected areas below the fog line where the heavy 
marine fog does not reach and successful viticulture can occur. The 
petition states that examples of such protected regions within the 
proposed AVA include the areas around Freestone, Annapolis, and 
Occidental. The high elevations within the proposed AVA also allow for 
vineyards to be placed above the fog. The petition states that the 
established Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, in particular, benefits from 
elevations above the fog line. According to the petition, commercial 
viticulture would likely not occur within the proposed AVA without 
protection from the extreme marine influences, either in the form of 
elevations above the fog line or lower elevations sheltered by the 
ridgelines, because the cold temperatures and reduced sunlight caused 
by heavy marine fog would not allow grapes to ripen reliably.
    By contrast, the region immediately to the east of the proposed 
AVA, within the established Russian River Valley AVA, lacks summits 
that exceed 1,000 feet. Additionally, the Russian River Valley AVA is 
dominated by large areas with gentler slopes, including the Santa Rosa 
Plain and the Green Valley that forms the established Green Valley of 
the Russian River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.57). The Petaluma Gap AVA, to 
the south of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, also has lower 
elevations and gentler slopes.
Geology
    Much of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is characterized by 
sedimentary rock of the Franciscan Complex, including Franciscan 
sandstone. Other major geological formations within the proposed AVA 
include the German Rancho Formation and the Gualala Formation, both of 
which also contain sedimentary rock. To the south of the proposed AVA, 
the region is dominated by the Wilson Grove Formation, which is 
comprised of claystone, siltstone, and fine sandstone overlaying 
Franciscan Formation sedimentary rock. Northeast of the proposed AVA, 
the Franciscan Formation is prevalent, but to the southeast, the Wilson 
Grove Formation is more common. Farther east, the Santa Rosa Plain is 
characterized by Quaternary alluvium and fluvial deposits, which are 
uncommon within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.
    The petition states that the underlying geology of a region 
contributes to the topography. Because the Wilson Grove Formation and 
alluvial deposits are more easily eroded than the geological formations 
of the proposed AVA, the topography to the south and east of the 
proposed AVA is characterized by lower elevations, rounded hills, and 
gentle slopes with generally deep soils. By contrast, the proposed AVA 
has high elevations and steep, rugged slopes with thin soils that have 
a high sand content. The petition states that both the thin soils and 
high sand content promote good drainage in vineyards, which is 
important to disease prevention.
Climate
    Temperature: The proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA boundary begins at 
the Pacific coast and extends inland

[[Page 62753]]

only a few miles. As a result, the climate of the proposed AVA is 
strongly influenced by the cold marine air and heavy marine fog. The 
petition states that much of the proposed AVA is located within the 
``Marine'' climate zone, a category within a climate scale created by 
former University of California Extension farm advisors Robert Sisson 
and Paul Vossen during their work in Sonoma County.\7\ Sisson believed 
that the Marine zone was too cold for successful viticulture. However, 
the petition states that Sisson's climate scale did not take into 
account the role the coastal mountains play in creating areas below the 
fog line that are protected from the heaviest marine influences, the 
ridgelines that are above the fog line in the proposed AVA, or the 
advances in viticultural practices that have been made since the scale 
was created. The petition notes that the areas within the proposed AVA 
around Annapolis, Seaview, Occidental, and Freestone are examples of 
such protected locations within the Marine zone where successful 
commercial viticulture takes place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University 
of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986 
(This publication notes the findings of University of California 
Extension Farm Advisors Robert Sisson and Paul Vossen regarding the 
climate zones of Sonoma County, California.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition states that although the proposed West Sonoma Coast 
AVA contains ridgelines above the fog line as well as areas at lower 
elevations that are sheltered from the heaviest marine fog and air, the 
marine influence is still strong enough to affect the climate within 
the proposed AVA. The petition included growing degree day (GDD) 
accumulations for a location in Occidental, which is within the 
proposed AVA, and a location in Windsor, which is within the 
established Russian River Valley AVA and also within the eastern 
portion of the established Sonoma Coast AVA. The data shows that the 
location within the proposed AVA accumulates fewer GDDs than the 
location to the east of the proposed AVA.

                                                        Table 1--Growing Degree Day Accumulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Winkler method \8\                                   Daily method \9\
                    Location                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      2011         2012         2013         2014         2011         2012         2013      2014 \10\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windsor.........................................        1,860        2,271        2,466        2,628        1,918        2,331        2,513        2,685
Occidental......................................        1,761        2,024        2,070        2,358        1,872        1,991        2,045        2,411
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lower GDD accumulations reflect the lower daytime temperatures 
within the proposed AVA. The petition included a graph showing the 
average monthly maximum temperatures during the growing seasons from 
2010 to 2014 for locations in Occidental, which is within the proposed 
AVA, and within Windsor and Santa Rosa, which are east of the proposed 
AVA and also within the Sonoma Coast AVA and the Russian River Valley 
AVA. The graph shows that temperatures were highest in Windsor, ranging 
from approximately 79 degrees F to approximately 108 degrees F. In 
Santa Rosa, the temperature range was almost identical to the range for 
Windsor. By contrast, maximum temperatures in Occidental did not exceed 
100 degrees F and ranged from approximately 71 degrees F to 
approximately 98 degrees F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A.J. Winkler et al., General Viticulture 60-71 (2nd. Ed. 
1974). The Winkler method of calculating GDDs utilizes the monthly 
average temperature above 50 degrees Fahrenheit (the minimum 
temperature required for grapevine growth) multiplied by the number 
of days in the month during the growing season (April 1 through 
October 31).
    \9\ This method of calculating GDDs utilizes the sum of daily 
average temperatures above 50 degrees F during the growing season. 
See Washington State University, Growing Degree Days (July 23, 
2018), https://wine.wsu.edu/extension/weather/growing-degree-days/.
    \10\ Data is incomplete for a 17-day period in September and 
October 2014 at the Occidental station. Daily GDD accumulations 
during these days are based on an average of temperatures two weeks 
prior and two weeks following this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition states that, in spite of the heavy marine influence, 
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA generally has warmer nocturnal 
temperatures than the regions to the east. According to the petition, 
cool air drains off of the mountains of the proposed AVA at night and 
settles in the lower elevations to the east, resulting in cooler 
nighttime temperatures to the east. The petition included a graph 
showing the monthly low temperatures from 2012 to 2014 for locations in 
Occidental, Windsor, and Santa Rosa. The graph shows that monthly low 
temperatures within Occidental, in the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, 
range from approximately 37 degrees F to approximately 47 degrees F. By 
contrast, at the Windsor station to the east of the proposed AVA, 
temperatures range from approximately 31 degrees F to approximately 43 
degrees F. At the Santa Rosa station, also to the east of the proposed 
AVA and at lower elevations than both the Occidental and Windsor 
stations, temperatures range from approximately 28 degrees F to 
approximately 44 degrees F. The petition states that, when compared to 
the region to the east, the proposed AVA has more nights with 
temperatures that are warm enough to allow the grapes to continue 
maturing. Additionally, because nighttime temperatures seldom drop low 
enough to cause significant damage to the vines, the petition states 
that frost protection measures within the proposed AVA are ``nearly 
non-existent,'' whereas frost protection methods are more frequently 
used in the lower inland areas to the east of the proposed AVA.
    Wind Speed: Finally, the petition included data on wind speed 
averages from 2010 to 2013 within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, 
the region to the east, and Valley Ford, which is to the south of the 
proposed AVA within the Petaluma Gap AVA. The petition states that wind 
speeds are higher within the region to the south of the proposed West 
Sonoma Coast AVA due to the lower elevations and more open terrain that 
does not block the wind. Furthermore, wind speeds are higher to the 
east of the proposed AVA because winds can enter that region from the 
San Pablo Bay, to the south of the proposed AVA, and blow relatively 
unhindered up the broad Santa Rosa Plain. The petition states that high 
wind speeds, such as those found in the regions to the east and south 
of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, can slow photosynthesis rates in 
grapevines and, therefore, can also slow fruit development and 
maturation.

[[Page 62754]]



                                               Table 2--Wind Speed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Average wind speed (miles per hour)
     Location (direction from proposed AVA)      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2010            2011            2012            2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Ford (south).............................             8.0             7.4             7.6             8.5
Windsor (east)..................................             3.4             3.2             3.3             3.9
Santa Rosa (east)...............................             3.9             4.0             4.1             N/A
Occidental (within).............................             1.6             1.4             1.6             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Distinguishing Features

    In summary, the topography, geology, and climate of the proposed 
West Sonoma Coast AVA distinguish it from the surrounding regions. The 
proposed AVA has steeper slopes and reaches higher maximum elevations 
than the regions to the south and east. The proposed AVA also has lower 
wind speeds than the regions to the south and east. Additionally, in 
contrast to the region to the east, the proposed AVA has geological 
features that lack large amounts of alluvium, lower GDD accumulations, 
cooler daytime temperatures and warmer nighttime temperatures, and 
lower wind speeds. To the west of the proposed AVA is the Pacific 
Ocean. The petition did not provide comparison data for the region to 
the north of the proposed AVA, in Mendocino County, because the term 
``Sonoma Coast'' is not used to describe regions outside of Sonoma 
County; therefore, per TTB regulations, the region to the north could 
not be included in an AVA called ``West Sonoma Coast.''

Comparison of the Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing Sonoma 
Coast AVA

Sonoma Coast AVA
    T.D. ATF-253, which published in the Federal Register on June 11, 
1987 (52 FR 22304), established the Sonoma Coast AVA in Sonoma County, 
California. The primary feature of the Sonoma Coast AVA, as described 
in T.D. ATF-253, is a marine-influenced climate that is cooler than the 
region of Sonoma County east of the Russian River Valley AVA. The 
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA shares this characteristic with the 
larger Sonoma Coast AVA. Therefore, TTB believes that the proposed West 
Sonoma Coast AVA appears to share enough similarities to remain within 
the established Sonoma Coast AVA.
    However, the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA does have some 
characteristics that distinguish it from the Sonoma Coast AVA, which 
TTB believes would warrant its establishment as a new AVA. For example, 
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is largely within the ``Marine'' 
climate zone, which results in lower GDD accumulations than are found 
within the eastern portion of the Sonoma Coast AVA, which is in the 
``Coastal Cool'' climate zone.\11\ Additionally, the proposed AVA is in 
a mountainous region with steeper slopes and more rugged terrain than 
the majority of the Sonoma Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University 
of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986 
(This publication notes the findings of University of California 
Extension Farm Advisors Robert Sisson and Paul Vossen regarding the 
climate zones of Sonoma County, California.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comparison of the Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing 
North Coast AVA
    The North Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-145, published in 
the Federal Register on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 42973). It includes 
all or portions of Napa, Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake, Marin, and Solano 
Counties, California. In the conclusion of the ``Geographical 
Features'' section of the preamble, T.D. ATF-145 states that ``[d]ue to 
the enormous size of the North Coast, variations exist in climatic 
features such as temperature, rainfall, and fog intrusion.''
    The proposed West Sonoma Coast 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 climatic features, namely temperature, soils, 
and topography than the diverse, multicounty North Coast AVA. In this 
regard, TTB notes that T.D. ATF-145 specifically states that ``approval 
of this viticultural area does not preclude approval of additional 
areas, either wholly contained with the North Coast, or partially 
overlapping the North Coast,'' and that ``smaller viticultural areas 
tend to be more uniform in their geographical and climatic 
characteristics, while very large areas such as the North Coast tend to 
exhibit generally similar characteristics, in this case the influence 
of maritime air off of the Pacific Ocean and San Pablo Bay.'' Thus, the 
proposal to establish the West Sonoma Coast AVA is not inconsistent 
with what was envisioned when the North Coast AVA was established.

Comparison of the Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to the Existing Fort 
Ross-Seaview AVA

    The Fort Ross-Seaview AVA was established by T.D. TTB-98, published 
in the Federal Register on December 14, 2011 (76 FR 77684). The Fort 
Ross-Seaview AVA is located within both the Sonoma Coast and North 
Coast AVAs and would be located entirely within the proposed West 
Sonoma Coast AVA, if that AVA is established. T.D. TTB-98 describes the 
Fort Ross-Seaview AVA as an area of coastal ridges, mountains, and 
hills of elevations generally above 920 feet. T.D. TTB-98 states that 
these higher elevations are typically above the fog line, allowing the 
AVA to receive more sunlight and warmer temperatures than the lower 
elevations. Additional information provided by the proposed West Sonoma 
Coast AVA petitioner shows that there are approximately 12 vineyards 
within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, and they are all planted at 
elevations above the fog line.
    The Fort Ross-Seaview AVA shares the mountainous topography and 
marine-influenced climate of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 
However, although there are elevations within the proposed West Sonoma 
Coast AVA that are above the fog line, similar to those within the Fort 
Ross-Seaview AVA, the proposed AVA also includes areas at elevations 
below the fog line. Some of these lower elevations are sheltered from 
the heaviest marine fog and, therefore, can support viticulture. 
Additional information provided by the petitioner shows that there are 
approximately 15 vineyards within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 
and outside of the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, 9 of which are planted at 
elevations at or below the fog line. Therefore, TTB believes that 
although the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA shares the general topographic and 
climatic characteristics of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, the 
proposed AVA has a broader range of elevations where viticulture

[[Page 62755]]

takes place that distinguish it from the established AVA and would 
warrant its establishment as a new AVA.

TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 141,846-acre West 
Sonoma Coast AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in 
this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for 
AVA in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this 
proposed rule.

Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed 
below in the proposed regulatory text.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a 
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true 
place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85 
percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area 
represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions 
listed in Sec.  4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). 
If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name 
appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the 
bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. 
Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in 
a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new 
label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an 
AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 
7, 1986. See Sec.  4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 
4.39(i)(2)) for details.
    If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``West Sonoma 
Coast,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance 
under Sec.  4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The 
text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, 
wine bottlers using the name ``West Sonoma Coast'' in a brand name, 
including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin 
of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use 
the AVA name as an appellation of origin if this proposed rule is 
adopted as a final rule. TTB is not proposing ``Sonoma Coast,'' 
standing alone, as a term of viticultural significance with regards to 
the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA because the term already has 
viticultural significance pursuant to 27 CFR 9.116 as the name of an 
established AVA. Accordingly, the proposed part 9 regulatory text set 
forth in this document specifies only the full name ``West Sonoma 
Coast'' as a term of viticultural significance for the proposed AVA for 
the purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations.
    The approval of the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA would not affect 
any existing AVA, and any bottlers using ``Sonoma Coast,'' ``Fort Ross-
Seaview,'' or ``North Coast'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand 
name for wines made from grapes grown within the Sonoma Coast, Fort 
Ross-Seaview, or North Coast AVAs would not be affected by the 
establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the proposed West 
Sonoma Coast AVA would allow vintners to use ``West Sonoma Coast,'' 
``Sonoma Coast,'' and ``North Coast'' as appellations of origin for 
wines made from grapes grown within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 
if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. 
Additionally, vintners would be allowed to use ``West Sonoma Coast,'' 
as well as ``North Coast,'' ``Sonoma Coast,'' and ``Fort Ross-
Seaview,'' as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown 
within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA if the wines meet the eligibility 
requirements for the appellation.

Public Participation

Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on 
whether it should establish the proposed AVA. TTB is also interested in 
receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, 
boundary, soils, climate, and other required information submitted in 
support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed West Sonoma 
Coast AVA's location within the existing Sonoma Coast and North Coast 
AVAs, 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 established AVAs. 
TTB is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features 
of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the surrounding Sonoma 
Coast and North Coast AVA that the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 
should no longer be part of that AVA. Finally, TTB is interested in 
comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so 
distinguishable from the established Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, which is 
located within the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, that the established 
AVA should not be part of the proposed AVA. Please provide any 
available specific information in support of your comments.
    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the 
proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA on wine labels that include the term 
``West Sonoma Coast'' as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine 
Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether 
there will be a conflict between the proposed AVA name and currently 
used brand names. If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, 
the comment should describe the nature of that conflict, including any 
anticipated negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA 
will have on an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also 
interested in receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for 
example, by adopting a modified or different name for the AVA.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the 
following three methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the 
online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2018-
0008 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at 
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available 
under Notice No. 177 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments 
submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use 
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab.
     U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the 
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or 
have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 
1310 G Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.
    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this 
notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 177 and include your 
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, 
be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public 
disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB 
considers all comments as originals.

[[Page 62756]]

    In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for 
yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If 
you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include 
the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you 
comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the 
``Organization'' blank of the online comment form. If you comment via 
postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's 
comment on letterhead.
    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing 
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right 
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

Confidentiality

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

Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected 
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about 
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2018-0008 on the Federal e-
rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at https://www.regulations.gov. A 
direct link to that docket is available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 177. You may 
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page 
at https://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use 
Regulations.gov, click on the site's ``Help'' tab.
    All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization 
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all 
address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous 
attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for 
posting.
    You may also view copies of this notice, all related petitions, 
maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed 
comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the 
TTB Public Reading Room, 1310 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. You 
may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note 
that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-
sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. 
Contact TTB's Public Reading Room at the above address or by telephone 
at 202-453-2135 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of 
comments or other materials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived 
from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a 
proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. 
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant 
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted 
this notice of proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment

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

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec.  9.__ to read as follows:


Sec.  9.__  West Sonoma Coast.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``West Sonoma Coast''. For purposes of part 4 of this 
chapter, ``West Sonoma Coast'' is a term of viticultural significance.
    (b) Approved maps. The 14 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the 
West Sonoma Coast viticultural area are titled:
    (1) McGuire Ridge, California, 1991 (provisional edition);
    (2) Stewarts Point, California, 1978;
    (3) Annapolis, California, 1977;
    (4) Tombs Creek, California, 1978;
    (5) Fort Ross, California, 1998;
    (6) Cazadero, California, 1998;
    (7) Duncans Mills, California, 1979;
    (8) Camp Meeker, California, 1995;
    (9) Valley Ford, California, 1954; photorevised 1971;
    (10) Two Rock, California, 1954; photorevised 1971;
    (11) Bodega Head, California, 1972;
    (12) Arched Rock, California, 1977;
    (13) Plantation, California, 1977; and
    (14) Gualala, California, 1998.
    (c) Boundary. The West Sonoma Coast viticultural area is located in 
Sonoma County, California. The boundary of the West Sonoma Coast 
viticultural area is as described below:
    (1) The beginning point is on the McGuire Ridge map at the 
intersection of the Sonoma County/Mendocino County boundary and the 
northwest corner of section 29, T11N/R14W. From the beginning point, 
proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.4 mile to an unnamed hilltop 
with a marked elevation of 820 feet in section 29, T11N/R14W; then
    (2) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 1.4 miles to the 
intersection of the eastern boundary of section 32 and the 800-foot 
elevation contour, T11/R14W; then
    (3) Proceed southeast along the 800-foot elevation contour for 3.1 
miles, crossing onto the Stewarts Point map, to its intersection with 
the northern boundary of section 3, T10N/R14W; then
    (4) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 3 and then 
along the northern boundary of section 2 for a total of 0.8 mile to the 
intersection of the northern boundary of section 2 and the 600-foot 
elevation contour, T10N, R14W; then
    (5) Proceed generally southeast along the 600-foot elevation 
contour for 3.3 miles, crossing onto the Annapolis map, to its 
intersection with the northern boundary of section 12, T10N/R14W; then
    (6) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 12, T10N/
R14W, for 0.1 mile to its intersection with the 600-foot elevation 
contour; then
    (7) Proceed north then generally east along the meandering 600-foot 
elevation contour for 4.8 miles to its sixth intersection with the 
northern boundary of section 7, T10N/R13W; then
    (8) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.2 mile to the 
intersection of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Kelly Road 
and an unnamed, unimproved road with a marked elevation of 725 feet, 
known locally as Oak Hill LO Road, in section 8, T10N/R13W; then

[[Page 62757]]

    (9) Proceed south in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the 
intersection of Soda Springs Road and the eastern boundary of section 
7, T10N/R13W; then
    (10) Proceed in a straight line southeast for 1.6 miles to the 
intersection of the eastern boundary of section 17, T10N/R13W, and the 
800-foot elevation contour; then
    (11) Proceed southeast along the 800-foot elevation contour for 2.6 
miles to its intersection with an unnamed, unimproved road near the 
862-foot benchmark in section 21, T10N/R13W; then
    (12) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.2 mile to the 
intersection of the 600-foot elevation contour and an intermittent 
stream in section 28, T10N/R13W; then
    (13) Proceed south along the 600-foot elevation contour for 1.7 
miles to its intersection with the eastern boundary of section 33, 
T10N/R13W; then
    (14) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.5 mile to the 
intersection of an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Skaggs 
Springs Road and an unnamed, unimproved road known locally as Skyline 
Road, near the Mendosoma Fire Station in section 34, T10N/R13W; then
    (15) Proceed southeast along the unnamed, unimproved road (Skyline 
Road) for total of 5.9 miles as it follows Skyline Ridge and crosses 
onto the Tombs Creek map, back onto the Annapolis map, then back on to 
the Tombs Creek map, to the intersection of the road with the 1,200-
foot elevation contour in section 13, T9N/R13W; then
    (16) Proceed southeast along the 1,200-foot elevation contour for 
0.6 mile to the intersection with Allen Creek in section 18, T9N/R12W; 
then
    (17) Proceed north along Allen Creek for 0.2 mile to the 
intersection with the 920-foot elevation contour in section 18, T9N/
R12W; then
    (18) Proceed east and then southeast along the meandering 920-foot 
elevation contour, crossing onto the Fort Ross map, then onto the Tombs 
Creek map, and then back onto the Fort Ross map, to the intersection of 
the elevation contour with Jim Creek in section 21, T9N/R12W; then
    (19) Proceed southeast along Jim Creek for 0.7 mile to the 
intersection of the creek with the northern boundary of section 27, 
T9N, R12W, then
    (20) Proceed east along the northern boundary of section 27 for 0.5 
mile to the northeast corner of section 27; then
    (21) Proceed south along the eastern boundaries of sections 27, 34, 
3, 7, 15, and 22 for 5.1 miles to the intersection of the eastern 
boundary of section 22 and Fort Ross Road, T8N/R12W; then
    (22) Proceed east along Fort Ross Road for approximately 262 feet 
to the intersection of the road with the middle branch of Russian Gulch 
Creek in section 23, T8N/R12W; then
    (23) Proceed south along the middle branch of Russian Gulch Creek 
for 1.2 miles to the intersection with the 920-foot elevation contour 
in section 26, T8N/R12W; then
    (24) Proceed southeast in a straight line east for 2 miles, 
crossing onto the Cazadero map, to the summit of Pole Mountain in 
section 30, T8N/R11W; then
    (25) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 4.7 miles, crossing 
onto the Duncans Mills map, to the confluence of Austin Creek and the 
Russian River, T7N/R11W; then
    (26) Proceed generally east (upstream) along the Russian River for 
3.1 miles to the intersection of the Russian River and the Bohemian 
Highway in section 7, T7N/R10W; then
    (27) Proceed southeast along the Bohemian Highway for a total of 
10.1 miles, crossing onto the Camp Meeker map and through the towns of 
Camp Meeker and Occidental, then crossing onto the Valley Ford map and 
through the town of Freestone, to the intersection of the Bohemian 
Highway and an unnamed medium-duty road known locally as Bodega Road 
near benchmark (BM) 214 in section 12, T6N/R10W; then
    (28) Proceed northeast along Bodega Road for 0.9 mile, crossing 
onto the Camp Meeker map, to the intersection of the road with an 
unnamed light-duty road known locally as Barnett Valley Road north of 
the marked 486-foot elevation point in the Ca[ntilde]ada de Jonive land 
grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (29) Proceed south then east along Barnett Valley Road for 2.2 
miles, crossing onto the Valley Ford map and then onto the Two Rock 
map, to the intersection of Bennett Valley Road with Burnside Road in 
section 17, T6N/R9W; then
    (30) Proceed southeast along Burnside Road for 3.2 miles to its 
intersection with the 400-foot elevation contour just north of an 
unnamed light duty road known locally as Bloomfield Road in the 
Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T5N/R9W; then
    (31) Proceed west along the 400-foot elevation contour for 6.7 
miles, crossing onto the Valley Ford map, to the intersection of the 
elevation contour with an unimproved road, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi 
land grant, T6N/R9W; then
    (32) Proceed northwest then southwest along the unnamed, unimproved 
road for 0.9 mile to its terminus, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land 
grant, T6N/R9W; then
    (33) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 0.1 mile to the 
marked 448-foot summit of an unnamed hilltop, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi 
land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (34) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 0.6 mile to the 61-
foot benchmark along an unnamed secondary highway known locally as 
Freestone Valley Ford Road, Ca[ntilde]ada de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/
R10W; then
    (35) Proceed west-northwest in a straight line for 0.8 mile to VABM 
724 in the Estero Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (36) Proceed west in a straight line for 1.0 mile to the 
intersection of Salmon Creek and an intermittent stream, Estero 
Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then
    (37) Proceed west (downstream) along Salmon Creek for 9.6 miles, 
crossing onto the Bodega Head map, to the mouth of the creek at the 
Pacific Ocean; then
    (38) Proceed north along the Pacific coastline for 51.4 miles, 
crossing over the Duncan Mills, Arched Rock, Fort Ross, Plantation, and 
Stewarts Point maps and onto the Gualala map to the intersection of the 
coastline with the Sonoma County/Mendocino County line; then
    (39) Proceed east along the Sonoma County/Mendocino County line for 
5.6 miles, crossing onto the McGuire Ridge map, and returning to the 
beginning point, T11N, R14W.

    Signed: July 27, 2018.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
    Approved: November 13, 2018.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).

    Editorial note:  This document was received for publication by 
the Office of the Federal Register on November 29, 2018.
[FR Doc. 2018-26321 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-31-P