Proposed Establishment of the Contra Costa Viticultural Area and Modification of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Viticultural Areas, 18471-18481 [2023-06350]

Agencies

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

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18471-18481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2023-0004; Notice No. 223]
RIN 1513-AC97


Proposed Establishment of the Contra Costa Viticultural Area and 
Modification of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Viticultural 
Areas

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to 
establish the approximately 167,146-acre ``Contra Costa'' American 
viticultural area (AVA) in Contra Costa County, California. Only the 
westernmost portion of the proposed AVA would lie in the established 
San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. To avoid this partial 
overlap, TTB proposes to expand the boundary of the established San 
Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs to entirely encompass the proposed 
Contra Costa AVA. The proposed expansions would add approximately 
109,955 acres to each of the established AVAs. TTB designates 
viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of 
their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may 
purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.

DATES: TTB must receive your comments on or before May 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this 
proposal and view copies of this document, its supporting materials, 
and any comments TTB receives on the proposal within Docket No. TTB-
2023-0004, as posted on Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov), 
the Federal e-rulemaking portal. Please see the ``Public 
Participation'' section of this document below for full details on how 
to comment on this proposal via Regulations.gov or U.S. mail, and for 
full details on how to obtain copies of this document, its supporting 
materials, and any comments related to this proposal.

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 the functions 
and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions to 
the TTB Administrator through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated

[[Page 18472]]

December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 
2003).
    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to 
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their 
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets 
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the 
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 
lists the approved AVAs.

Definition

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

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) 
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and allows any interested 
party to 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 to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an 
AVA must include the following:
     Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is 
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
     An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of 
the proposed AVA;
     A narrative description of the features of the proposed 
AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical 
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and 
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
     The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of 
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
     A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA 
boundary based on USGS map markings.
    If the petition proposes the establishment of a new AVA entirely 
within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, the evidence submitted must 
include information that identifies the attributes that are consistent 
with the existing AVA and explain how the proposed AVA is sufficiently 
distinct from the existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate 
recognition. If a petition seeks to expand the boundaries of an 
existing AVA, the petition must show how the name of the existing AVA 
also applies to the expansion area, and must demonstrate that the area 
covered by the expansion has the same distinguishing features as those 
of the existing AVA, and different features from those of the area 
outside the proposed, new boundary.

Petition To Establish the Contra Costa AVA and To Modify the Boundaries 
of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs

    TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram, on behalf of the 
Contra Costa Winegrowers Association, proposing to establish the 
``Contra Costa'' AVA and to modify the boundaries of the existing San 
Francisco Bay (27 CFR 9.157) and Central Coast (27 CFR 9.75) AVAs. The 
proposed Contra Costa AVA is located in Contra Costa County, 
California, and is partially within the two established AVAs. The 
approximately 167,146-acre proposed AVA currently contains at least 14 
wineries and at least 60 commercial vineyards covering a total of 
approximately 1,700 acres. The most commonly grown grape varietal in 
the proposed AVA is Zinfandel, but other varieties grown in the 
proposed AVA include petite sirah, mourvedre, chardonnay, and cabernet 
sauvignon.
    The westernmost portion of the proposed Contra Costa AVA would lie 
within the existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. To 
address the partial overlap and account for viticultural similarities, 
the petition also proposes to expand the boundaries of both established 
AVAs so that the entire proposed Contra Costa AVA would be included 
within both AVAs. The proposed expansion would increase the size of the 
San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs by approximately 109,955 acres 
each.
    The distinguishing features of the proposed Contra Costa AVA are 
its topography and climate. The petition also included information 
about the soils of the proposed AVA, but did not provide a clear 
comparison of the soils in the proposed AVA to those of the surrounding 
regions. Therefore, TTB is unable to determine if soils are a 
distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA. Unless otherwise noted, all 
information and data contained in the following sections are from the 
petition to establish the proposed AVA and its supporting exhibits.

Proposed Contra Costa AVA

Name Evidence

    The proposed Contra Costa AVA takes its name from its location 
within Contra Costa County, California. According to the petition, the 
Spanish phrase ``contra costa'' translates to ``opposite coast,'' which 
is a reference to the county's position opposite San Francisco on San 
Francisco Bay. The petition states that prior to Prohibition, Contra 
Costa County was one of the Bay Area's leading winegrowing regions. The 
petition notes that grapes from vineyards in the region have a 
reputation for having their own ``Contra Costa style,'' \1\ described 
as an ``earthy, dusty and leathery quality'' attributed to the 
``defining terroir'' of the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://wine.appellationamerica.com/wine-region/Contra-Costa-County.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition included multiple examples of the use of the name 
``Contra Costa'' to describe the region of the proposed AVA. For 
example, the Contra Costa Water District supplies water to customers 
within the proposed AVA. Non-profit agencies serving the proposed AVA 
include Contra Costa Humane Society, Contra Costa Senior Legal 
Services, Meals on Wheels of Contra Costa, and Sustainable Contra 
Costa. Other businesses within the proposed AVA include Contra Costa 
Hardwood Floor Service, Alameda Contra Costa Fire Extinguisher 
Equipment Company, Contra Costa Farms LLC, Contra Costa Cinema, Contra 
Costa Country Club, Contra Costa Auto Sales, and Contra Costa 
Powersports.

Boundary Evidence

    The proposed Contra Costa AVA is located in north-central and 
eastern Contra Costa County, in California, along the southern coast of 
Suisun Bay. The northern boundary of the proposed AVA follows the 
southern shore of Suisun Bay. The eastern boundary follows a series of 
straight lines drawn between points on the USGS maps and approximates 
the boundary between Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County, which 
is farther inland and receives less direct marine influence than the 
proposed AVA. The southern

[[Page 18473]]

boundary is mostly comprised of a series of straight lines drawn 
between points on the maps and separates the proposed AVA from higher 
elevations and inland regions with less marine influence. The western 
boundary also follows a series of straight lines between points and 
separates the proposed AVA from regions with steeper slopes and greater 
marine influence, including the established Lamorinda AVA (27 CFR 
9.254), which shares a portion of its boundary with the proposed Contra 
Costa AVA.

Distinguishing Features

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the 
proposed Contra Costa AVA are its topography and climate. The Suisun 
Bay is directly to the north of the proposed AVA. Although some islands 
are located in the bay, the petition excluded them due to their 
waterlogged, highly organic, acidic soils that are unlikely to be 
suitable for viticulture. As a result, the following sections will 
describe the features of the regions to the east, south, and west of 
the proposed AVA.
Topography
    According to the petition, the proposed Contra Costa AVA consists 
of relatively flat terrain interrupted in places by rolling hills. Most 
of the terrain has elevations below 100 feet, and nearly all of the 
proposed AVA is below 1,000 feet. Slope angles within the proposed AVA 
are typically less than 5 percent, but can reach up to 30 percent in 
some of the hills along the western and southern boundary and in the 
ridgeline that runs north-south between Concord and Bay Point. Although 
some areas of steep slopes are included in the proposed AVA in order to 
simplify the boundary, the petition states that over 71 percent of the 
proposed AVA has slopes with less than 5 percent grade, and 78 of the 
proposed AVA has slopes with less than 10 percent grade. The petition 
states that cool, heavy marine air stays at lower elevations, leading 
to diurnal cooling. Areas at higher elevations are above the layer of 
marine air and experience less cooling. Differences in temperatures can 
cause differences in grape development, the timing of harvest, and 
sugar accumulation and acidity in the grapes.
    East of the proposed AVA, the terrain is generally flat as one 
moves into the California Delta and the San Joaquin Valley. To the 
south and west of the proposed AVA, the terrain becomes steeper, with 
slope angles generally exceeding 20 percent and commonly above 30 
percent. Elevations to the west and south of the proposed AVA are also 
generally higher than within the proposed AVA, exceeding 1,300 feet in 
the region to the west and reaching 3,849 feet at the summit of Mt. 
Diablo to the south of the proposed AVA.
Climate
    The petition provided information about the climate of the proposed 
Contra Costa AVA. According to the petition, the warm days and cool 
nights affect the character of the grapes grown in the proposed AVA and 
the resulting wine, resulting in a ``definitive Contra Costa style'' 
\2\ that is characterized by an ``earthy, dusty and leathery quality.'' 
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://wine.appellationamerica.com/wine-region/Contra-Costa-County.html.
    \3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Climate data in the petition included growing degree day 
accumulations \4\ and average annual precipitation amounts. The 
petition also included information about the average growing season 
maximum temperatures and the average minimum temperatures from within 
the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. However, because the 
temperature data was from only 2 years, TTB was unable to determine if 
maximum and minimum temperatures are a distinguishing feature of the 
proposed AVA, and the information is not included in this rulemaking 
document.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64. In the Winkler 
climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the 
growing season, measured in annual Growing Degree Days (GDDs), 
defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree 
Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees F, the 
minimum temperature required for grapevine growth.
    \5\ The maximum and minimum temperature data is included in 
Tables 4 and 5 of the petition, which is posted within Docket No. 
TTB-2023-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \6\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS47.
    \7\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS170.
    \8\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS247.
    \9\ Station identified in petition as KCAWALNU35.
    \10\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS248.
    \11\ Station identified in petition as HBP.
    \12\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS178.
    \13\ Station identified in petition as BNE.
    \14\ Station identified in petition as ONO.
    \15\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS213.

                                   Table 1--2014-2019 Growing Degree Day Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Location (direction from proposed AVA)         2019       2018       2017       2016       2015       2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brentwood \6\ (within)........................      4,275      4,141      4,157      4,090        N/A      4,195
Concord \7\ (within)..........................      3,634      3,579        N/A        N/A      3,825      3,008
Jersey Island \8\ (northeast).................      3,961      3,955      4,047        N/A        N/A        N/A
Walnut Creek-Lakewood \9\ (south).............      4,211      4,025      4,417        N/A        N/A        N/A
San Joaquin Valley \10\ (east)................      3,932      4,423      4,355        N/A        N/A        N/A
Harvey O. Banks Pumping Station \11\ (south)..      4,633      4,535      4,840      4,607      4,767      4,973
Moraga \12\ (southwest).......................      2,781      2,729      2,809      2,716      2,665      2,820
Briones Regional Park \13\ (west).............      3,281      3,156        N/A      3,124      3,279      3,469
Oakland Hills \14\ (west).....................      2,590      2,327      2,859      2,386      2,598      2,602
El Cerrito \15\ (west)........................      2,118      1,848      2,222      2,005      2,371      2,308
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the proposed Contra Costa AVA, annual GDD accumulations are 
generally warm, ranging from a low of 3,008 to a high of 4,275. To the 
northeast of the proposed AVA, at the Jersey Island location, GDD 
accumulations are similar to those found in the proposed AVA. However, 
the petition states that this region was not included in the proposed 
AVA due to a difference in soil types. South of the proposed AVA, in 
the Lakewood region of Walnut Creek, GDD accumulations are also similar 
to those within the proposed AVA, although the 2017 GDD accumulations 
for Lakewood were higher. Additionally, the petition states this region 
was not included in the proposed AVA because it is a largely 
residential area that is not suited for commercial viticulture. Farther 
south, at the Harvey O. Banks pumping station in Byron, GDD 
accumulations are significantly higher than within the

[[Page 18474]]

proposed AVA. To the east, within the San Joaquin Valley, GDD 
accumulations are generally warmer than within the proposed AVA, as the 
marine influence decreases as one moves farther inland. West of the 
proposed AVA, as one moves closer to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific 
Ocean, GDD accumulations are lower than within the proposed AVA. GDD 
accumulations west of the proposed AVA range from 1,848 at El Cerrito, 
which is adjacent to San Francisco Bay, to 3,469 at Briones Regional 
Park, which is further inland and closer to the proposed Contra Costa 
AVA.
    The petition also includes annual precipitation amounts for the 
proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. The data is shown in the 
following table. Four stations with two years or less of precipitation 
data, which are located to the northeast, east, and southeast of the 
proposed AVA, were excluded from this chart, but are included in the 
petition. The precipitation data shows that the proposed Contra Costa 
AVA received less rainfall than the regions to the west and southwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The period of record is from October 1 of one year to 
September 30 of the next year.
    \17\ Station identified in petition as KCAANTIO10.

                            Table 2--Annual \16\ Precipitation Amounts in Millimeters
                                                      [mm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Location (direction from proposed AVA)       2017-2018    2016-2017    2015-2016    2014-2015    2013-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brentwood (within).............................          243          345          497          435          279
Antioch \17\ (within)..........................          330          531          391          405          301
Concord (within)...............................          351          565          N/A          335          232
Briones Regional Park (west)...................          N/A          N/A          655          469          374
Moraga (southwest).............................          593        1,712        1,179          712          907
Oakland Hills (west)...........................          565        1,073          737          561          490
El Cerrito (west)..............................          483          N/A          610          553          411
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Distinguishing Features

    The proposed Contra Costa AVA is distinguished from the surrounding 
regions by its topography and climate. The proposed AVA is a region of 
relatively flat terrain interrupted in places by rolling hills. Slope 
angles are typically less than 5 percent, and most of the terrain has 
elevations below 100 feet. Within the proposed AVA, GDD accumulations 
range from 3,008 to 4,275, and average annual precipitation amounts 
range from 232 mm to 565 mm.
    North of the proposed AVA is Suisun Bay. Although there are islands 
within the bay, the petition omitted them from the proposed AVA due to 
their mucky soils that are unsuitable for commercial viticulture. To 
the east of the proposed AVA is the California Delta and the San 
Joaquin Valley, which are generally flat and lack the rolling hills 
that interrupt the proposed Contra Costa AVA. GDD accumulations east of 
the proposed AVA are generally higher, ranging from 3,932 to 4,423. 
South of the proposed AVA, the terrain is steeper, with slope angles 
generally exceeding 20 percent grade. GDD accumulations are also 
higher, ranging from 4,025 to 4,973. West of the proposed AVA, 
elevations are higher and can exceed 1,300 feet. The climate west of 
the proposed AVA is generally cooler and wetter, with GDD accumulations 
ranging from 1,848 to 3,469 and average annual precipitation amounts 
ranging from 411 mm to 737 mm.

Comparison of the Proposed Contra Costa AVA to the Existing San 
Francisco Bay AVA

    The San Francisco Bay AVA was established by T.D. ATF-407, which 
was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 1985 (50 FR 
43130). T.D. ATF-407 describes the San Francisco Bay AVA as entirely 
being within seven counties, including the eastern portion of Contra 
Costa County. The distinguishing feature of the San Francisco Bay AVA 
is ``a marine climate which is heavily influenced by the proximity of 
the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.'' T.D. ATF-407 also notes 
that the eastern boundary of the AVA was chosen, in part, as a way of 
separating the AVA from the drier, warmer inland region of the Central 
Valley, which lacks a strong marine influence.
    The proposed Contra Costa AVA is partially located within the San 
Francisco Bay AVA and shares some of the characteristics of the larger 
established AVA. For example, similar to other locations in the San 
Francisco AVA, the proposed AVA is affected by cool, moist air from the 
Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. The proposed AVA is also 
generally cooler and wetter than the inland region to the east. 
However, the proposed Contra Costa AVA has some characteristics that 
distinguish it from the larger San Francisco Bay AVA. For instance, 
although the proposed Contra Costa AVA is influenced by marine air from 
San Francisco Bay, the proposed AVA is not adjacent to San Francisco 
Bay, the air travelling through Suisun Bay instead. Additionally, while 
T.D. ATF-407 describes the San Francisco Bay AVA as having a cool 
Mediterranean climate classification, the proposed Contra Costa AVA 
also includes regions with a warm Mediterranean climate classification.

Comparison of the Proposed Contra Costa AVA to the Existing Central 
Coast AVA

    The Central Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-216, which also 
established the San Francisco Bay AVA. T.D. ATF-216 describes the 
Central Coast AVA as a region between the Pacific Ocean and the Coast 
Ranges of California. The Central Coast AVA has a climate that is 
greatly affected by the marine influence, with the region to the east 
of the AVA having a more arid climate.
    The proposed Contra Costa AVA is partially located within the 
Central Coast AVA and shares some of the characteristics of the larger 
established AVA. For example, similar to other locations in the Central 
Coast AVA, the proposed AVA is affected by cool, moist air from the 
Pacific Ocean, which enters the region from San Francisco Bay via 
Suisun Bay. The proposed AVA is also generally cooler and wetter than 
the region to the east. However, the proposed Contra Costa AVA has some 
characteristics that distinguish it from the larger, multi-county 
Central Coast AVA. For instance, being a smaller region, the proposed 
AVA has less

[[Page 18475]]

topographic variety than the Central Coast AVA. Additionally, being 
adjacent to the shoreline of Suisun Bay, the proposed AVA is more 
directly exposed to cool marine air than other regions of the Central 
Coast AVA, such as the Paso Robles AVA (27 CFR 9.84), which is farther 
inland and, according to T.D. ATF-216, receives its marine air via the 
Salinas River, which empties into Monterey Bay.

Proposed Modification of the San Francisco Bay AVA

    As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed Contra 
Costa AVA also requested an expansion of the established San Francisco 
Bay AVA. The San Francisco Bay AVA is located to the west of the 
proposed Contra Costa AVA and overlaps the western third of the 
proposed AVA. In order to eliminate the partial overlap and account for 
viticultural similarities, the petition proposed moving the eastern 
boundary of the San Francisco Bay AVA farther to the east to encompass 
the entire proposed Contra Costa AVA.
    Currently, the San Francisco Bay AVA boundary in the vicinity of 
the proposed Contra Costa AVA and the proposed expansion area follows a 
straight line drawn from the summit of Mount Diablo northwest to the 
summit of Mulligan Hill, which is east of the city of Concord. The 
boundary then proceeds northwest in a straight line to the southern 
shoreline of Suisun Bay near the Seal Islands.
    The proposed boundary modification would move the San Francisco Bay 
AVA boundary east so that it would be concurrent with the boundary of 
the proposed Contra Costa AVA and entirely encompass the proposed AVA. 
The proposed boundary modification would begin at the point where the 
current San Francisco Bay AVA boundary intersects the summit of Mount 
Diablo. From there, the boundary would become concurrent with the 
southern boundary of the proposed Contra Costa AVA, proceeding west in 
a straight line to the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and the 680-
foot elevation contour. The proposed expansion boundary would then 
continue to follow the proposed Contra Costa AVA boundary in a 
counterclockwise direction, to the intersection of Bethel Island Road 
and Dutch Slough. The proposed boundary would continue following the 
proposed Contra Costa AVA boundary west along the shoreline of Dutch 
Slough, Big Break, New York Slough, and Suisun Bay, to the point where 
both the proposed expansion boundary and the proposed Contra Costa AVA 
boundary intersect with the current San Francisco Bay AVA boundary at 
the benchmark BM15 along the shoreline of Suisun Bay, near the Seal 
Islands. The proposal would increase the size of the San Francisco Bay 
AVA by approximately 109,955 acres.
    The expansion petition included evidence that the name ``San 
Francisco Bay'' applies to the eastern region of Contra Costa County, 
which includes the proposed expansion area. For example, the 
Association of Bay Area Governments includes the Contra Costa County 
government as well as the governments of cities within the proposed 
expansion area, including Brentwood and Antioch.\18\ Another example is 
that the Brentwood California Irrigation Management Information System 
(CIMIS) weather station is identified on the CIMIS website as being in 
the ``San Francisco Bay Region.'' \19\ The expansion also noted that an 
exhibit to the petition in T.D. ATF-407 included a listing of the 
``Largest Bay Area Wineries'' from the San Francisco Business 
Times.\20\ The list included Cline Cellars, which is located in the 
city of Oakley, within the proposed expansion area. Finally the 
expansion petition states that T.D. ATF-407 also included a map titled 
``Bay Area Place Names,'' which included the cities of Pittsburg, 
Antioch, Brentwood, and Bryon, which are all located in the proposed 
expansion area.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ https://abag.ca.gov/about-abag/what-we-do/our-members.
    \19\ See Exhibit U to the petition, which is posted within 
Docket No. TTB-2023-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \20\ Included in the expansion petition as Exhibit V; see Docket 
No. TTB-2023-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \21\ Included in the expansion petition as Exhibit X see Docket 
No. TTB-2023-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition claims that the region of the proposed expansion area 
has a climate that is similar to that of the established San Francisco 
Bay AVA and cooler than the Central Valley to the east. The petition 
states that T.D. ATF-407 identified the San Francisco Bay AVA as 
Regions I through III on the Winkler scale,\22\ indicating GDD 
accumulations of 3,500 (when calculated using degrees Fahrenheit) or 
less. The city of Livermore, which is within the San Francisco Bay AVA, 
was said to have a GDD accumulation of 3,400. The Central Valley, which 
is east of both the San Francisco Bay AVA and the proposed expansion 
area, was described as Region V, indicating GDD accumulations over 
4,000. The expansion petition notes that Winkler's General Viticulture, 
which was cited in T.D. ATF-407, indicated that the cities of Antioch 
and Brentwood, which are located in the proposed expansion area, were 
identified with GDD accumulations of 4,200 and 4,100, respectively, 
which may have explained their exclusion from the original San 
Francisco Bay AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64. In the Winkler 
climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the 
growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines climatic regions. 
One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean 
temperature is above 50 degrees F, the minimum temperature required 
for grapevine growth. The Winkler scale regions are as follows: 
Region Ia, 1,500-2,000 GDDs; Region Ib, 2,000-2,500 GDDs; Region II, 
2,500-3,000 GDDs; Region III, 3,000-3,500 GDDs; Region IV, 3,500-
4,000 GDDs; Region V, 4,000-4,900 GDDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expansion petition notes that current calculation of GDDs 
suggest that portions of the San Francisco Bay AVA have GDD 
accumulations that would place them in Region IV. For example, using 
climate normals from 1981-2010 and the same Winkler calculation method, 
the city of Livermore is 3,663, which would categorize it as Region IV. 
Similarly, using 1981-2010 data and the Winkler calculation method for 
the city of Brentwood, which is within the proposed expansion area, 
results in 3,801 GDDs, which also categorizes it within Region IV. 
Calculations for the city of Antioch resulted in 4,020 GDDs, which is 
within the Region V category. However, GDD accumulations for all three 
locations are still significantly lower than within the Central Valley 
city of Modesto, which has a GDD accumulation of 4,676. The petition 
notes that these more recent GDD calculations are not to suggest that 
Livermore should be removed from the San Francisco Bay AVA but rather 
that earlier figures may be outdated or misleading, due to climate 
change and shortcomings in using Winkler GDD calculations as a tool for 
analyzing marine influence from San Francisco Bay.
    T.D. ATF-407 stated that the San Francisco Bay AVA has 
precipitation amounts that are lower than the regions to the north and 
higher than locations in the Central Valley to the east. The expansion 
petition provided data suggesting that the same is true for the 
proposed expansion area. The 1981-2010 climate normals showed that 
annual precipitation in the city of Livermore, within the San Francisco 
Bay AVA, was 387 mm. Precipitation amounts within Brentwood and 
Antioch, within the proposed expansion area, were 326 mm and 336 mm, 
respectively (approximately 12 and 14 inches). Although these 
precipitation amounts are lower than the amount for

[[Page 18476]]

Livermore, the differences between these amounts and amounts in regions 
to the north of the San Francisco Bay AVA are even greater. For 
example, the cities of Napa, Petaluma, and Sonoma had precipitation 
amounts of 512 mm, 677 mm, and 798 mm, respectively. Additionally, the 
expansion petition notes that an exhibit in the original San Francisco 
Bay AVA petition showed the city of Antioch as having precipitation 
amounts of 13 inches, which is equivalent to the amount shown in the 
same exhibit for the city of San Jose, within the San Francisco Bay 
AVA, suggesting that precipitation amounts in Antioch were not a reason 
to exclude it from the San Francisco Bay AVA.\23\ Finally, the 
Brentwood and Antioch precipitation amounts from 1981-2010 are also 
higher than the Central Valley locations of Fresno and Los Banos, which 
received amounts of 292 mm and 253 mm, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The table was included as Exhibit Q in the original 
petition and is also included as Exhibit Y to the expansion 
petition, which are both posted in Docket TTB-2023-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Modification of the Central Coast AVA Boundary

    As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed Contra 
Costa AVA also requested an expansion of the established Central Coast 
AVA. The proposed Contra Costa AVA is located along the eastern 
boundary of the Central Coast AVA. The western third of the proposed 
AVA (that is, the region encompassing the city of Concord and points 
west) would, if established, be located within the current boundary of 
the Central Coast AVA. However, unless the boundary of the Central 
Coast AVA is modified, the remaining two-thirds of the proposed AVA 
would be outside the Central Coast AVA. If approved, the proposed 
Central Coast AVA expansion would place the proposed Contra Costa AVA 
entirely within the Central Coast AVA.
    Currently, the Central Coast AVA boundary in the vicinity of the 
proposed Contra Costa AVA and the proposed expansion area is concurrent 
with the current boundary of the San Francisco Bay AVA. The boundary 
follows a straight line drawn northwest to southeast from the southern 
shoreline of Suisun Bay near the Seal Islands to the summit of Mulligan 
Hill, which is east of the city of Concord. The boundary then follows a 
straight line southeast from Mulligan Hill to the summit of Mount 
Diablo, which is south of the proposed Contra Costa AVA, and then 
continues southeast in a straight line to the summit of Brushy Peak.
    The proposed boundary modification would move the Central Coast AVA 
boundary east so that it would be concurrent with the boundary of the 
proposed Contra Costa AVA and entirely encompass the proposed AVA. The 
proposed boundary modification would begin at the point where the 
current Central Coast boundary intersects the benchmark BM15 along the 
shoreline of Suisun Bay, near the Seal Islands. From there, the 
proposed boundary would become concurrent with the northern boundary of 
the proposed Contra Costa AVA, continuing east along the shoreline of 
Suisun Bay, New York Slough, Big Break, and Dutch Slough to the 
intersection of the shoreline of Dutch Slough with Bethel Island Road. 
The proposed Central Coast AVA boundary would then continue to follow 
the proposed Contra Costa AVA boundary in a clockwise motion to the 
point where both boundaries rejoin the current Central Coast AVA 
boundary at the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and the 680-foot 
elevation contour, southeast of the city of Concord. The proposed 
boundary modification would add 109,955 acres to the Central Coast AVA, 
an approximate 1.1 percent increase.
    The expansion petition included evidence that, although only a 
portion of Contra Costa County was originally included in the Central 
Coast AVA, the name ``Central Coast'' applies to the region of the 
county that is within the proposed expansion area, as well. For 
example, the web page for WineSearcher.Com states that Contra Costa 
County is in ``California's Central Coast AVA.'' \24\ The website lists 
wines from grapes grown in the eastern portion of Contra Costa County, 
including wines from Cline Cellars and Viano Vineyards. The web page 
does not distinguish between the western portion of Contra Costa 
County, which is in the Central Coast AVA, and the eastern portion, 
which is not. Although the eastern portion of the county is not 
currently within the Central Coast AVA and none of the wines from that 
region use ``Central Coast'' as an appellation of origin, the inclusion 
of wines from the eastern portion of Contra Costa County suggests that 
wine industry members and consumers associate the entire county with 
the name ``Central Coast.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ https://www.wine-searcher.com/regions-contra+costa+county. 
See also Exhibit O to the petition as posted within Docket No. TTB-
2023-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expansion petition also notes that California law associates 
the region of the proposed AVA with the ``Central Coast'' name when it 
states, ``Only dry wine produced entirely from grapes grown within the 
Counties of Sonoma, * * *, Contra Costa, * * * and Marin may be labeled 
with the words `California central coast dry wine.' '' \25\ The 
petition notes that TTB would not allow ``Central Coast'' as an 
appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown 
outside the boundaries as described in 27 CFR 9.75, but the California 
the statute establishes an historical association between ``Central 
Coast'' and the entirety of Contra Costa County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ California Business and Professional Code Sec.  25236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expansion petition also notes that the California Mid-State 
Fair held a Central Coast Wine Competition ``to promote the quality and 
style of wines being produced on the Central Coast.'' \26\ Wines from 
Contra Costa County were eligible to enter, with no distinction being 
made between wines made within the portion of the county within the 
Central Coast AVA and the portion outside the AVA. The petition states 
that the inclusion of wines from anywhere in the county demonstrates 
yet another association between the entire Contra Costa County and the 
term ``Central Coast.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ https://centralcoastwinecomp.com/2020/03/30/registration-opens-for-the-2020-central-coast-wine-competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the expansion petition notes that the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management's Central Coast Field Office includes all of Contra Costa 
County in its Central Coast administrative unit,\27\ further suggesting 
that the name ``Central Coast'' does not refer only to the western 
portion of the county that is currently within the Central Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Exhibits P and Q to the petition as posted within 
Docket No. TTB-2023-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The expansion petition claims that the proposed Central Coast AVA 
expansion area has features that are similar to the primary 
distinguishing feature of the Central Coast AVA listed in T.D. ATF-216, 
namely a marine-influenced climate. The petition included GDD data from 
Brentwood, which is within the proposed Central Coast AVA expansion 
area; Clayton, Concord, and Walnut Creek, which are currently within 
the Central Coast AVA; and Jersey Island, which is northeast of the 
proposed expansion area and not located within any AVA. The petition 
also included data from stations in Livermore and Concord, which are 
also

[[Page 18477]]

within the Central Coast AVA, but because the data was from less than 3 
years, TTB is not including it in this table. The GDD data from the 
other locations is shown in the following table.

       Table 3--Growing Degree Day Accumulations From Within Central Coast AVA and Proposed Expansion Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Location                           2019            2018            2017            2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brentwood.......................................           4,275           4,141           4,175           4,090
Clayton.........................................             N/A           4,489           4,656           4,097
Walnut Creek-Lakewood...........................           4,211           4,025           4,417             N/A
Jersey Island...................................           3,961           3,955           4,047             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GDD accumulations from within the proposed expansion area are 
within the range of GDD accumulations from locations within the Central 
Coast AVA, suggesting a similar climate. The GDD accumulations from the 
proposed expansion area are also higher than those from Jersey Island, 
which is outside both the proposed expansion area and the Central Coast 
AVA.
    The expansion petition also notes that T.D. ATF-407, which 
published in the Federal Register on January 20, 1999 (64 FR 3015), 
expanded the Central Coast AVA. The Sunset Magazine Western Garden 
Book's growing zones were cited in that final rule as evidence that the 
expansion area should be included in the Central Coast AVA. T.D. ATF-
407 states that the Central Coast AVA, at that time, included growing 
zones 7, 14, 15, 16, and 17. The current expansion petition notes that 
the proposed expansion area is in zone 14, which is described as 
``Northern California's inland areas with some ocean influence.'' \28\ 
The proposed expansion area's placement in zone 14 further indicates a 
marine-influenced climate similar to that of the established Central 
Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ https://www.sunsetwesterngardencollection.com/climate-zones/zone/central-california.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately 
167,146-acre ``Contra Costa'' AVA and to concurrently modify the 
boundaries of the existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs 
merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this document.
    TTB is proposing the establishment of the new AVA and the 
modification of the existing San Francisco Bay AVA as one action. 
Accordingly, if TTB establishes the proposed Contra Costa AVA, then the 
proposed boundary modification of the San Francisco Bay AVA would be 
approved concurrently. If TTB does not establish the proposed AVA, then 
the San Francisco Bay AVA boundary would not be modified.
    Furthermore, TTB is proposing the establishment of the new AVA and 
the modification of the existing Central Coast AVAs as separate 
actions, per the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, if TTB 
establishes the proposed AVA, the Central Coast AVA would be modified. 
However, if TTB does not establish the new AVA, the Central Coast AVA 
may still be modified as proposed in this document.

Boundary Description

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

Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed 
below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed 
Contra Costa AVA boundary and the proposed boundary modifications of 
the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs on the AVA Map Explorer on 
the TTB website, at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer.

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, ``Contra Costa,'' 
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 ``Contra Costa'' 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 notes that the phrase ``Contra Costa County'' is already recognized 
as a term of viticultural significance by virtue of being the name of a 
county. Therefore, labels using ``Contra Costa County'' as an 
appellation of origin would not be affected by the establishment of 
this AVA.
    If approved, the establishment of the proposed Contra Costa AVA and 
the concurrent expansions of the San Francisco Bay AVA and the Central 
Coast AVA would allow vintners to use ``Contra Costa,'' ``San Francisco 
Bay,'' and ``Central Coast'' as AVA appellations of origin for wines 
made primarily from grapes grown in the proposed Contra Costa AVA if 
the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation. 
Similarly, if the Central Coast AVA boundary is modified without the 
establishment of the proposed Contra Costa AVA, vintners would be able 
to use ``Central Coast'' as an AVA appellation of origin for wines made 
primarily within the proposed expansion area if the wines meet the 
eligibility requirements for the appellation.

Public Participation

Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on 
whether TTB should establish the proposed Contra Costa AVA and 
concurrently modify the boundaries of the established San

[[Page 18478]]

Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. TTB is interested in receiving 
comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, 
topography, and other required information submitted in support of the 
Contra Costa AVA petition. In addition, given the proposed AVA's 
partial location within the existing San Francisco Bay and Central 
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 AVA. TTB 
is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of 
the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the San Francisco Bay and 
Central Coast AVAs that the proposed Contra Costa AVA should not be 
part of the established AVAs. Please provide any available specific 
information in support of your comments.
    TTB also invites comments on the proposed expansion of the existing 
Central Coast and San Francisco Bay AVAs. TTB is interested in comments 
on whether the evidence provided in the petition sufficiently 
demonstrates that the proposed expansion area is similar enough to the 
San Francisco Bay AVA and the Central Coast AVA to be included in them. 
Comments should address the pertinent information that supports or 
opposes the proposed Central Coast AVA and San Francisco Bay AVA 
boundary expansions.
    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the 
proposed Contra Costa AVA on wine labels that include the term ``Contra 
Costa'' as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is 
particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a 
conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names. 
If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should 
describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated 
negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on 
an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in 
receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by 
adopting a modified or different name for the proposed AVA.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this proposal by using one of the 
following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the 
online comment form posted with this document within Docket No. TTB-
2023-0004 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at 
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available 
under Notice No. 223 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments 
submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use 
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the 
top of the page.
     U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the 
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
    Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this 
document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 223 and include your 
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, 
be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public 
disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider 
all comments as originals.
    Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own 
behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If 
you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other 
entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your 
name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please 
enter the entity's name in the ``Organization'' blank of the online 
comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your 
entity's comment on letterhead.
    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing 
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right 
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

Confidentiality

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

Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, selected 
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about 
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2023-0004 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. 223. You may 
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page 
at https://www.regulations.gov. For instructions on how to use 
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the 
top of the page.
    All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization 
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all 
address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous 
attachments or material that it considers unsuitable for posting.
    You may also obtain copies of this proposed rule, all related 
petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or 
mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal at 20 cents per 
8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies 
of USGS maps or any similarly-sized documents that may be included as 
part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings 
Division by email using the web form at https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by telephone at 202-453-1039, ext. 175, to request copies of 
comments or other materials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Executive Order 12866

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

Drafting Information

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

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment

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

[[Page 18479]]

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. Amend Sec.  9.75 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(42);
0
b. Removing the ``.'' at the end of paragraph (b)(43) and adding a 
``;'' in its place;
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(44) through (55);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(43) as paragraphs 
(c)(23) through (c)(59);
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(22).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  9.75  Central Coast.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (44) Benicia, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (45) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (46) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (47) Antioch North, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (48) Jersey Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (49) Bouldin Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (50) Woodward Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (51) Clifton Court Forebay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (52) Byron Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (53) Tassajara, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
    (54) Antioch South, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018; and
    (55) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018.
    (c) * * *
    (4) From this point, the boundary proceeds east along the shoreline 
of Alameda County and Contra Costa County across the Richmond, San 
Quentin, Mare Island, Benicia (2018 edition), Vine Hill (2018 edition), 
Honker Bay (2018 edition), and Antioch North maps and onto the Jersey 
Island map to the intersection of the shoreline with Bethel Island 
Road.
    (5) Proceed southeast in a straight line 0.7 mile to the 
intersection of Wells Road and Sandmound Road.
    (6) Proceed northeast in a straight line 2.7 miles, crossing onto 
the Bouldin Island map, to the northernmost point of Holland Tract 
Road.
    (7) Proceed south 1.9 miles along Holland Tract Road, crossing onto 
the Woodward Island map, to the road's intersection with the 10-foot 
elevation contour.
    (8) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line 4.1 miles to the 
intersection of Orwood Road and the Mokelumne Aqueduct.
    (9) Proceed south-southwest 5.5 miles, crossing onto the Clifton 
Court Forebay map, to the stream gauging station on Italian Slough, 
just west of Widdows Island and the shared Contra Costa-San Joaquin 
County line.
    (10) Proceed due west in a straight line to the western shore of 
Italian Slough, then proceed southwesterly along the shore of Italian 
Slough to its confluence with Brushy Creek.
    (11) Proceed westerly along Brushy Creek, crossing onto the Byron 
Hot Springs (2018 edition) map and continuing southwesterly along the 
creek to its intersection with Vasco Road.
    (12) Proceed northwest in a straight line 4.3 miles to the 
intersection of Kellogg Creek and Walnut Boulevard.
    (13) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line 2.9 miles, crossing 
onto the Tassajara (2018 edition) map, to the intersection of Marsh 
Creek and Miwok Trail.
    (14) Proceed northwesterly along Marsh Creek 2.4 miles, crossing 
onto the Antioch South map, to the creek's intersection with Deer 
Valley Road.
    (15) Proceed northerly along Deer Valley Road 3.1 miles to its 
intersection with Chadbourne Road.
    (16) Proceed northwest in a straight line 0.6 mile to the 
southwestern terminus of Tour Way.
    (17) Proceed northwest in a straight line 3 miles to the 
intersection of Oil Canyon Trail, Stewartville Trail, and Chadbourne 
Road.
    (18) Proceed northeasterly along the Stewartville Trail 1.9 miles 
to its intersection with the Contra Loma Trail.
    (19) Proceed northwest in a straight line 2.5 miles to the 
intersection of Somersville Road and Donlan Boulevard.
    (20) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line 2.5 miles, crossing 
onto the Clayton (2018 edition) map, to the intersection of Nortonville 
Road and Kirker Pass Road.
    (21) Proceed southwesterly along Kirker Pass Road approximately 2.5 
miles to its intersection with Hess Road.
    (22) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line to the 3,849-foot 
summit of Mt. Diablo.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  9.157 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(46);
0
b. Removing the ``.'' at the end of paragraph (b)(47) and adding a 
``;'' in its place;
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(48) through (b)(58);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(22) through (c)(24);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(44) as paragraphs 
(c)(40) through (c)(59); and
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(39).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  9.157  San Francisco Bay.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (48) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
    (49) Antioch South, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
    (50) Tassajara, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
    (51) Byron Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
    (52) Clifton Court Forebay, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
    (53) Woodward Island, California, scale 1:24,000; 2018;
    (54) Bouldin Island, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
    (55) Jersey Island, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
    (56) Antioch North, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
    (57) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018; and
    (58) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018.
    (c) * * *
    (22) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line 
to the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and Hess Road on the Clayton 
(2018 edition) map.
    (23) Proceed northeasterly along Kirker Pass Road to its 
intersection with Nortonville Road.
    (24) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line for 2.5 miles, 
crossing onto the Antioch South map, to the intersection of Somersville 
Road and Donlan Boulevard.
    (25) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line for 2.5 miles to the 
intersection of the Stewartville Trail and the Contra Loma Trail.
    (26) Proceed southwesterly along Stewartsville Trail for 1.9 miles 
to the intersection of Oil Canyon Trail, Stewartsville Trail, and 
Chadbourne Road.

[[Page 18480]]

    (27) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 3 miles to the 
southern terminus of Tour Way.
    (28) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 miles to the 
intersection of Chadbourne Road and Deer Valley Road.
    (29) Proceed southerly along Deer Valley Road for 3.1 miles to its 
intersection with Marsh Creek.
    (30) Proceed southeasterly along Marsh Creek for 2.4 miles, 
crossing onto the Tassajara (2018 edition) map, to the creek's 
intersection with Miwok Trail.
    (31) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line for 2.9 miles, 
crossing onto the Byron Hot Springs (2018 edition) map, to the 
intersection of Kellogg Creek and Walnut Boulevard.
    (32) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 4.3 miles to the 
intersection of Brushy Creek and Vasco Road.
    (33) Proceed northeasterly along Brushy Creek, crossing onto the 
Clifton Court Forebay map, to the confluence of Brushy Creek with the 
western shore of Italian Slough to a point due west of the stream 
gauging station on Italian Slough, just west of Widdows Island and the 
shared Contra Costa-San Joaquin County line.
    (34) Proceed due east to the stream gauging station, then proceed 
north-northeast for 5.5 miles, crossing onto the Woodward Island map, 
to the intersection of the Mokelumne Aqueduct and Orwood Road.
    (35) Proceed north-northwest in a straight line for 4.1 miles to 
the intersection of Holland Tract Road and the 10-foot elevation 
contour.
    (36) Proceed north for 1.9 miles along Holland Tract Road, crossing 
onto the Bouldin Island map, and continuing to the northernmost point 
of Holland Tract Road.
    (37) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 2.7 miles, crossing 
onto the Jersey Island map, to the intersection of Wells Road and 
Sandmound Road.
    (38) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 0.7 mile to the 
intersection of Bethel Island Road and the shoreline of Dutch Slough 
Road.
    (39) Proceed westerly along the shoreline of Dutch Slough and Big 
Break, crossing onto the Antioch North map, and continuing westerly 
along the shoreline of New York Slough, crossing onto the Honker Bay 
(2018 edition) map, and continuing westerly along the shoreline and 
onto the Vine Hill (2018 edition) map to the intersection of the 
shoreline and Interstate 680 at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge.
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec.  9.__ to read as follows:


Sec.  9.__  Contra Costa.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``Contra Costa''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, 
``Contra Costa'' is a term of viticultural significance.
    (b) Approved maps. The 15 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the 
Contra Costa viticultural area are titled:
    (1) Antioch North, California, 2018;
    (2) Antioch South, California, 2018;
    (3) Benicia, California, 2018;
    (4) Bouldin Island, California, 2018;
    (5) Briones Valley, California, 2018;
    (6) Byron Hot Springs, California, 2018;
    (7) Clayton, California, 2018;
    (8) Clifton Court Forebay, California, 2018;
    (9) Jersey Island, California, 2018;
    (10) Honker Bay, California, 2018;
    (11) Tassajara, California, 2018;
    (12) Vine Hill, California, 2018;
    (13) Walnut Creek, California, 1995;
    (14) Walnut Creek, California, 2018; and
    (15) Woodward Island, California, 2018.
    (c) Boundary. The Contra Costa viticultural area is located in 
Contra Costa County, California. The boundary of the Contra Costa 
viticultural area is as described as follows:
    (1) The beginning point is on the Bouldin Island map at the 
northernmost point of Holland Tract Road. From the beginning point, 
proceed south 1.9 miles along Holland Tract Road, crossing onto the 
Woodward Island map, to the intersection of the road with the 10-foot 
elevation contour; then
    (2) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line 4.1 miles to the 
intersection of Orwood Road and the Mokelumne Aqueduct; then
    (3) Proceed south-southwest in a straight line 5.5 miles, crossing 
onto the Clifton Court Forebay map, to the stream gauging station on 
Italian Slough, just west of the Widdows Island and the shared Contra 
Costa-San Joaquim County line; then
    (4) Proceed due west in a straight line to the western shore of 
Italian Slough, then proceed southwesterly along the western shore 
Italian Slough to its confluence with Brushy Creek; then
    (5) Proceed westerly along Brushy Creek, crossing onto the Byron 
Hot Springs map and continuing southwesterly along the creek to its 
intersection with Vasco Road; then
    (6) Proceed northwest in a straight line 4.3 miles to the 
intersection of Kellogg Creek and Walnut Boulevard; then
    (7) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line 2.9 miles, crossing 
onto the Tassajara map, to the intersection of Marsh Creek and Miwok 
Trail; then
    (8) Proceed northwesterly along Marsh Creek 2.4 miles, crossing 
onto the Antioch South map, to the creek's intersection with Deer 
Valley Road; then
    (9) Proceed northerly along Deer Valley Road 3.1 miles to its 
intersection with Chadbourne Road; then
    (10) Proceed northwest in a straight line 0.6 mile to the 
southwestern terminus of Tour Way; then
    (11) Proceed northwest in a straight line 3 miles to the 
intersection of Oil Canyon Trail, Stewartville Trail, and Chadbourne 
Road; then
    (12) Proceed northeasterly along Stewartville Trail 1.9 miles to 
its intersection with the Contra Loma Trail; then
    (13) Proceed northwest in a straight line 2.5 miles to the 
intersection of Somersville Road and Donlan Boulevard; then
    (14) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line 2.5 miles, crossing 
onto the Clayton map, to the intersection of Nortonville Road and 
Kirker Pass Road; then
    (15) Proceed southwesterly along Kirker Pass Road 5 miles to its 
intersection with Alberta Way; then
    (16) Proceed southwest in a straight line 1.5 miles to the 
intersection of Buckeye Trail, Blue Oak Trail, and Lime Ridge Trail; 
then
    (17) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line 2.6 miles to the 
intersection of Arroyo Cerro Del and the 400-foot elevation contour 
just east of North Gate Road; then
    (18) Proceed northwest in a straight line 2.5 miles, crossing onto 
the Walnut Creek map (2018 edition), to the intersection of Brodia Way 
and La Casa Via; then
    (19) Proceed west-northwest in a straight line, crossing onto the 
Walnut Creek (1995 edition) map, and continue 3.1 miles on the 1995 
edition map to the marked 781-foot peak south of the shared Lafayette-
Walnut Creek corporate boundary line and north of an unnamed light-duty 
road known locally as Peaceful Lane; then
    (20) Proceed northwest in a straight line 1.7 miles to the 833-foot 
peak marked ``Hump 2''; then
    (21) Proceed north-northwest 0.5 mile to the water tank (known 
locally as the Withers Reservoir) at the end of an unnamed light-duty 
road known locally as Kim Road, in the Ca[ntilde]ada del Hambre y Las 
Bolsas Land Grant; then
    (22) Proceed northwest in a straight line 3 miles, crossing onto 
the Briones Valley map, to the intersection of Alhambra Creek Road and 
Alhambra Valley Road; then

[[Page 18481]]

    (23) Proceed northwest in a straight line 4.1 miles, crossing onto 
the Benicia map, to the intersection of Highway 4 and Cummings Skyway; 
then
    (24) Proceed north-northwest in a straight line 1.8 miles to the 
intersection of Carquinez Scenic Drive and an unnamed road known 
locally as Canyon Lake Drive; then
    (25) Proceed northeasterly in a straight line 0.6 mile to the 
marked post office in Port Costa; then
    (26) Proceed southeast in a straight line 0.9 mile to the first 
unnamed road that crosses the railroad tracks and intersects with the 
shoreline at Little Bull Valley; then
    (27) Proceed easterly along the shoreline approximately 38.3 miles, 
crossing over the Vine Hill, Honker Bay, and Antioch North maps and 
onto the Jersey Island map to Bethel Island Road; then
    (28) Proceed southeast in a straight line 0.7 mile to the 
intersection of Wells Road and Sandmound Boulevard; then
    (29) Proceed northeast in a straight line 2.7 miles, crossing onto 
the Bouldin Island map and returning to the beginning point.

    Signed: March 17, 2023.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.

    Approved: March 20, 2023.
Thomas C. West, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2023-06350 Filed 3-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P