7618 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1Figures 2 and 6 to the expansion petition are 

both included in Docket TTB–2022–00012 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2022–0012; T.D. TTB–190; 

Ref: Notice No. 217] 

RIN 1513–AC82 

Expansion of the Red Hills Lake 

County Viticultural Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) is expanding 

the ‘‘Red Hills Lake County’’ American 

viticultural area in Lake County, 

California by approximately 679 acres. 

The established viticultural area and the 

expansion area are both located entirely 

within the larger Clear Lake and North 

Coast viticultural areas. TTB designates 

viticultural areas to allow vintners to 

better describe the origin of their wines 

and to allow consumers to better 

identify wines they may purchase. 

DATES: This final rule is effective March 

6, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Bresnahan, 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. 151. 

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). In addition, 

the Secretary of the Treasury has 

delegated certain administration and 

enforcement authorities to TTB through 

Treasury Order 120–01. 

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 to TTB of petitions for the 

establishment or modification of 

American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 

lists the approved AVAs. 

Definition 

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines 

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region having 

distinguishing features as described in 

part 9 of the regulations and, once 

approved, a name and a delineated 

boundary codified 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 allows any interested party to 

petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as an AVA. Petitioners 

may use the same process to request 

changes to established AVAs. Section 

9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

9.12) prescribes standards for petitions 

to modify established AVAs. Petitions to 

expand an established AVA must 

include the following: 

Evidence that the area within the 

proposed expansion area boundary is 

nationally or locally known by the name 

of the established AVA; 

An explanation of the basis for 

defining the boundary of the proposed 

expansion area; 

A narrative description of the features 

of the proposed expansion area that 

affect viticulture, such as climate, 

geology, soils, physical features, and 

elevation, that make the proposed 

expansion area similar to the 

established AVA and distinguish it from 

adjacent areas outside the established 

AVA boundary; 

The appropriate United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) 

showing the location of the proposed 

expansion area, with the boundary of 

the proposed expansion area clearly 

drawn thereon; and 

A detailed narrative description of the 

proposed expansion area boundary 

based on USGS map markings. 

Petition To Expand the Red Hills Lake 

County AVA 

TTB received a petition submitted on 

behalf of local vineyard owners, 

proposing to expand the established 

‘‘Red Hills Lake County’’ AVA by 

adding three separately owned parcels 

of land covering a total of approximately 

679 acres. The Red Hills Lake County 

AVA (27 CFR 9.169) was established by 

T.D. TTB–15, which was published in 

the Federal Register on July 12, 2004 

(69 FR 41750). The proposed expansion 

area and the established AVA are both 

located within the Clear Lake (27 CFR 

9.99) and North Coast AVAs (27 CFR 

9.30). 

According to the expansion petition, 

the topography, soils, and climate of the 

proposed expansion area are similar to 

those of the established Red Hills Lake 

County AVA. The original petition 

noted that within the Red Hills Lake 

County AVA, slopes range from zero to 

greater than 30 percent, but that ‘‘[n]o 

one group clearly predominates.’’ When 

describing the region west of Bottle 

Rock Road, which is the location of the 

proposed expansion area, the original 

petition stated, ‘‘almost all of the terrain 

shown has slopes of 15% and above.’’ 

The expansion petition notes that, while 

the original AVA petition was correct 

that a large part of the region to the west 

of Bottle Rock Road does contain steep 

slopes, it also contains areas with 

gentler slopes. Figure 2 in the expansion 

petition indicates that the proposed 

expansion area contains regions with 

slopes from 0 to 20 percent, as well as 

slopes from 20 to over 30 percent. 

Additionally, the expansion petition 

includes a wider view of the slope and 

terrain map (Figure 6).1 Both figures 

show that the slope angles of the 

proposed expansion area are similar to 

those within the Red Hills Lake County 

AVA, as described in T.D. TTB–15. 

According to the original Red Hills Lake 

County petition, the major soil groups 

within the AVA are of volcanic origin 

and include Glenview-BottlerockArrowhead, Konocti-Benridge, and 

Collayomi-Aiken-Whispering. The 

expansion petition claims that 90 

percent of the acreage within the 

proposed expansion area contains soils 

of the same soil units described in the 

original petition and are of volcanic 

origin. By contrast, the expansion 

petition notes that the region west of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7619 

proposed expansion area and the Red 

Hills Lake County AVA contains large 

levels of serpentine soils, which are not 

found in the Red Hills Lake County 

AVA. 

According to the brief description of 

the Red Hills Lake County AVA’s 

climate provided in T.D. TTB–15, the 

AVA has a climate that is more 

influenced by Clear Lake than by the 

Pacific Ocean. The temperature 

contrasts between the lake and the land 

create winds that are credited for 

reducing the risk of frost within the 

AVA. The proposed expansion petition 

explains that, today, some growers 

within the Red Hills Lake County AVA 

and the expansion area have frost 

protection measures in place, although 

those may not be needed every year. By 

contrast, the expansion petition states 

that vineyards in the established Big 

Valley District-Lake County AVA (27 

CFR 9.232), located to the northwest of 

the proposed expansion area and Red 

Hills Lake County AVA, require the use 

of frost protection every year. The 

expansion petition also notes that 

growers within the Red Hills Lake 

County AVA and the expansion area 

rarely harvest grapes before October 1, 

further suggesting the two regions share 

a similar climate. Although the 

proposed expansion area is more similar 

to the Red Hills Lake County AVA than 

the surrounding regions, the expansion 

area still shares some of the features of 

the surrounding Clear Lake and North 

Coast AVAs. For example, according to 

the petition, the Red Hills Lake County 

AVA, its expansion area, and the Clear 

Lake AVA are entirely within the Lake 

County Subwatershed. The Lake County 

Subwatershed gives both AVAs less fog 

and warmer temperatures than other 

parts of the North Coast AVA. The 

Pacific Ocean largely affects the climate 

in most parts of the North Coast AVA, 

while Clear Lake and the Lake County 

Subwatershed have larger effects on the 

Clear Lake and Red Hills Lake County 

AVAs’ climate. 

According to the petition, while 

similar to the Clear Lake AVA in some 

ways, the Red Hills Lake County AVA 

differs from the larger area as well. For 

example, the petition states that the Red 

Hills Lake County AVA and its 

expansion area have some of the highest 

elevations in the Clear Lake AVA. The 

petition also notes that the Red Hills 

Lake County AVA, including its 

expansion area, contains mostly red 

volcanic soils. While the Clear Lake 

AVA contains these soils as well, the 

Clear Lake AVA petition cited ‘‘the 

uniform sandy loam and clay loam 

soils’’ as a distinguishing feature. The 

petition also describes the Red Hills 

Lake County AVA as having higher 

minimum and median heat summations 

than the Clear Lake AVA. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

TTB published Notice No. 217 in the 

Federal Register on November 28, 2022 

(87 FR 72937), proposing to expand the 

Red Hills Lake County AVA. In the 

notice, TTB summarized the evidence 

from the petition regarding the name, 

boundary, and distinguishing features 

for the proposed expansion area. For a 

detailed description of the evidence 

relating to the name, boundary, and 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

expansion area, and for a comparison of 

the distinguishing features of the 

proposed expansion area to the 

surrounding areas and to the established 

Red Hills Lake County AVA, see Notice 

No. 217. 

The comment period for Notice No. 

217 closed on January 27, 2023. In 

response to Notice No. 217, TTB 

received no comments. 

TTB Determination 

After careful review of the petition, 

TTB finds that the evidence provided by 

the petitioner supports the expansion of 

the Red Hills Lake County. Accordingly, 

under the authority of the FAA Act, 

section 1111(d) of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 

of the TTB regulations, TTB modifies 

the boundary of the AVA, effective 30 

days from the publication date of this 

document. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative description of the 

boundary modification of the Red Hills 

Lake County AVA in the regulatory text 

published at the end of this final rule. 

Maps 

The petitioner provided the required 

maps, and they are listed below in the 

regulatory text. The modified Red Hills 

Lake County AVA boundaries may also 

be viewed 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 

or with a brand name that includes an 

AVA name, at least 85 percent of the 

wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name, and the wine must meet the 

other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of 

the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). 

If the wine is not eligible for labeling 

with an AVA name and that name 

appears in the brand name, then the 

label is not in compliance and the 

bottler must change the brand name and 

obtain approval of a new label. 

Similarly, if the AVA name appears in 

another reference on the label in a 

misleading manner, the bottler would 

have to obtain approval of a new label. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing an AVA name 

that was used as a brand name on a 

label approved before July 7, 1986. See 

§ 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 

CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details. 

The expansion of the Red Hills Lake 

County AVA will not affect any other 

existing AVA, and bottlers using ‘‘Red 

Hills Lake County,’’ ‘‘Clear Lake,’’ or 

‘‘North Coast’’ as an appellation of 

origin or in a brand name for wines 

made from grapes within the ‘‘Red Hills 

Lake County,’’ ‘‘Clear Lake,’’ or ‘‘North 

Coast’’ AVAs will not be affected by this 

expansion of the Red Hills Lake County 

AVA. The expansion of the Red Hills 

Lake County AVA will allow vintners to 

use ‘‘Red Hills Lake County,’’ ‘‘Clear 

Lake,’’ ‘‘North Coast,’’ or any 

combination of the three AVA names as 

appellations of origin for wines made 

primarily from grapes grown within the 

expansion area if the wines meet the 

eligibility requirements for the 

appellations. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

TTB certifies that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The regulation imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of an AVA name 

would be the result of a proprietor’s 

efforts and consumer acceptance of 

wines from that area. Therefore, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

as defined by Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30, 1993, as amended. 

Therefore, no regulatory assessment is 

required. 

Drafting Information 

Kate Bresnahan of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division drafted this final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
7620 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 24 / Monday, February 5, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter 

I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

■ 2. Section 9.169 is amended by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(15) 

through (22) as paragraphs (c)(31) 

through (38); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(14); and 

■ c. Adding new paragraphs (c)(15) 

through (30). 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 9.169 Red Hills Lake County. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(14) Proceed about 0.4 mile 

northwesterly along Harrington Flat 

Road to its intersection with Bottle Rock 

Road in section 18, T21N, R8W; then 

(15) Proceed southerly along Bottle 

Rock Road approximately 2,500 feet to 

its intersection with an unnamed, 

unimproved dirt road near the marked 

2,928-foot elevation; then 

(16) Proceed west along the 

unimproved dirt road to its intersection 

with the 2,800-foot elevation contour; 

then 

(17) Proceed northwesterly, then 

northerly along the meandering 2,800- 

foot elevation contour to its intersection 

with the northern boundary of section 

18, T12N, R8W; then 

(18) Proceed easterly along the 

northern boundary of section 18 to its 

intersection with Bottle Rock Road; then 

(19) Proceed north along Bottle Rock 

Road to its intersection with an 

unnamed trail in section 7, T12N, R8W; 

then 

(20) Proceed west in a straight line to 

the western boundary of section 7, 

T12N, R8W; then 

(21) Proceed north along the western 

boundary of section 7 to the 

southeastern corner of section 1, T12N, 

R9W; then 

(22) Proceed west along the southern 

boundary of section 1 to its intersection 

with the 2,600-foot elevation contour; 

then 

(23) Proceed north in a straight line to 

the intersection with an unnamed, 

unimproved dirt road known locally as 

Helen Road; then 

(24) Proceed west in a straight line to 

the fourth intersection with the 2,560- 

foot elevation contour in section 1, 

T12N, R9W; then 

(25) Proceed south in a straight line to 

the southern boundary of section 1; then 

(26) Proceed west along the southern 

boundary of section 1 to its intersection 

with the western boundary of section 1; 

then 

(27) Proceed north along the western 

boundary of section 1 to its intersection 

with the northern boundary of section 1; 

then 

(28) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 1 to its intersection 

with the 2,000-foot elevation contour; 

then 

(29) Proceed southeasterly along the 

2,000-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with Bottle Rock Road; then 

(30) Proceed northwesterly along 

Bottle Rock Road to its intersection with 

Cole Creek Road to the west and an 

unnamed, unimproved road to the east 

in section 25, T13N, R9W; then 

* * * * * 

Signed: January 22, 2024. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: January 23, 2024. 

Thomas C. West, Jr., 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2024–01877 Filed 2–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2023–0658] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying 

the operating schedule that governs the 

Roosevelt (US1) Bridge, across the 

Okeechobee Waterway, mile 7.5, at 

Stuart, FL. This action is necessary to 

allow the drawbridge to operate on 

demand, as outlined in the Record of 

Decision for the high-level fixed US1 

Roosevelt Bridge which was constructed 

in 1997. Additionally, with the increase 

in railway activity on the adjacent 

railroad bridge, this modification will 

allow the drawbridges to operate in 

concert. The drawbridge name in the 

existing regulation is incorrect and will 

be changed in this Final Rule. 

DATES: This rule is effective March 6, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov. Type the docket 

number (USCG–2023–0658) in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. In 

the Document Type column, select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Ms. Jennifer Zercher, Bridge 

Management Specialist, Seventh Coast 

Guard District; telephone 305–415– 

6740, email Jennifer.N.Zercher@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Advance, Supplemental) 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

FL Florida 

FDOT Florida Department of 

Transportation 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The drawbridge name in the 

regulation, Roosevelt (US1) Bridge, is 

incorrect and will be permanently 

changed in the CFR and referred to for 

the remainder of the Final Rule as SR 

707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge. 

The SR 707 (Dixie Highway) Bridge 

was included in previously published 

notices and a general deviation with a 

request for comments in the Federal 

Register, under docket number USCG– 

2022–0222. These actions were taken to 

gather comments on waterway usage 

and the operation of the Florida East 

Coast Railroad Bridge and the SR 707 

(Dixie Highway) Bridge at Stuart, FL. 

On May 3, 2022, under docket USCG– 

2022–0222, the Coast Guard published a 

Notification of Inquiry entitled, 

‘‘Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart, FL’’ in 

the Federal Register (87 FR 26145). On 

June 10, 2022, a Supplemental 

Notification of Inquiry entitled, 

‘‘Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Okeechobee Waterway, Stuart, FL’’ was 

published in the Federal Register (87 

FR 35472). We received a total 2,358 

comments on those publications and 

those comments pertaining to SR 707 

(Dixie Highway) Bridge were addressed 

in the NPRM. On June 8, 2023, under 

docket USCG–2022–0222, the Coast 

Guard published a Temporary Deviation 

entitled, ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1