Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83431 

Country Listed person and address Federal Register citation 

Vast Polymers, Ambalaj Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, a.k.a. Novaroll, Atakoy 

7–8–9–10, Kisim Mah. Cobancesme, E–5 Yan Yol Cad. A No: 22/1 Ic Kapi: 164 

Bakirkoy, Istanbul, Tu ̈rkiye.

89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL REGISTER 

PAGE NUMBER], October 16, 2024. 

* * * * * * * 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Strategic Trade and Technology Security. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23638 Filed 10–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2023–0002; T.D. TTB–197; 

Ref: Notice No. 221] 

RIN 1513–AC78 

Establishment of the Crystal Springs 

of Napa Valley Viticultural Area; 

Modification of the Calistoga 

Viticultural Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the 

approximately 4,000-acre ‘‘Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley’’ American 

viticultural area (AVA) in Napa County, 

California. The newly-established AVA 

is located entirely within the existing 

North Coast and Napa Valley 

viticultural areas. TTB also is modifying 

the existing Calistoga AVA in response 

to comments received during the 

comment period. 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 

November 15, 2024. 

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 

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. 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 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; 

• If the proposed AVA is to be 

established within, or overlapping, an 

existing AVA, an explanation that both 

identifies the attributes of the proposed 

AVA that are consistent with the 

existing AVA and explains how the 

proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct 

from the existing AVA and therefore 

appropriate for separate recognition; 

• 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. 

Crystal Springs of Napa Valley Petition 

TTB received a petition from Steven 

Burgess, president of Burgess Cellars, 

Inc., proposing to establish the ‘‘Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley’’ AVA. Mr. 

Burgess submitted the petition on behalf 

of local vineyard owners and 

winemakers. The proposed AVA is 

located in Napa County, California, and 

lies entirely within the established 

North Coast (27 CFR 9.30) and Napa 

Valley (27 CFR 9.23) AVAs. Within the 

proposed AVA, there are approximately 

30 commercial vineyards covering a 

total of approximately 230 acres. The 

distinguishing feature of the proposed 

Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA is 

its topography. 

The petition describes the proposed 

AVA as an ‘‘all hillside’’ region with no 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
83432 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

flat areas along the western face of the 

Vaca Range. Slope angles range from 15 

to 40 percent within the proposed AVA 

and are generally west-to-southwesterly 

facing. According to the petition, westand southwesterly-facing slopes receive 

larger amounts of solar radiation than 

north- and east-facing slopes. The 

higher solar radiation amounts can 

allow grapes to easily mature each 

growing season. Elevations in the 

proposed AVA range from 400 to 1,400 

feet. According to the petition, the 

reason for limiting the proposed AVA to 

this range of elevations is that the 400- 

foot contour generally marks the 

transition point between the foothills of 

the Vaca Range and the floor of the 

Napa Valley. The lower foothills and 

valley floor are more susceptible to 

frosts than the elevations within the 

proposed AVA and, therefore, are more 

likely to need frost protection 

equipment in the vineyards. 

Additionally, the 1,400-foot contour 

along the northern boundary of the 

proposed AVA coincides with the 

southern boundary of the established 

Howell Mountain AVA (27 CFR 9.94). 

According to the petition, elevations 

over 1,400 feet are also more susceptible 

to frosts due to adiabatic cooling, also 

known as elevation cooling. 

To the north of the proposed AVA, 

the elevations rise up to 2,200 feet 

within the established Howell Mountain 

AVA. The topography of the Howell 

Mountain AVA contains hillsides, like 

the proposed Crystal Springs of Napa 

Valley AVA, but also has a rolling, 

plateau-like feature at the summit. The 

region to the east of the proposed AVA 

has elevations like those of the proposed 

AVA, but the slopes have a more 

easterly to northeasterly exposure. 

South and west of the proposed AVA 

are the established St. Helena (27 CFR 

9.149) and Calistoga (27 CFR 9.209) 

AVAs, which have lower elevations and 

include the flat lands along the floor of 

the Napa Valley. The petition describes 

slope angles within the established St. 

Helena AVA as mostly less than 5 

percent, while the established Calistoga 

AVA is described as having ‘‘a 

multitude of * * * slopes, from steep 

mountains to benchlands to fans, to flat 

valley floors to riparian habitats.’’ 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Comments Received 

TTB published Notice No. 221 in the 

Federal Register on March 2, 2023 (88 

FR 13072), proposing to establish the 

Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA. In 

the notice, TTB summarized the 

evidence from the petition regarding the 

name, boundary, and distinguishing 

feature of the proposed AVA. The notice 

also included the information from the 

petition comparing the distinguishing 

feature of the proposed AVA to the 

surrounding areas. For a detailed 

description of the evidence and for a 

detailed comparison of the proposed 

AVA to the surrounding areas, see 

Notice No. 221. 

In Notice No. 221, TTB solicited 

comments on the accuracy of the name, 

boundary, and other required 

information submitted in support of the 

petition. In addition, given the proposed 

Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA’s 

location within the North Coast and 

Napa Valley AVAs, TTB solicited 

comments on whether the evidence 

submitted in the petition sufficiently 

differentiates it from the established 

AVAs. TTB also requested comments on 

whether the features of the proposed 

AVA are so distinguishable from the 

established AVAs that the proposed 

AVA should no longer be part of one or 

the other, or both of, the established 

AVAs. The comment period originally 

closed May 1, 2023. TTB extended the 

comment period for an additional 60 

days, until June 30, 2023, because of a 

request submitted during the comment 

period (comment 6). See Notice No. 

221A, which published in the Federal 

Register on May 2, 2023 (88 FR 27420). 

TTB received 15 comments in 

response to Notices No. 221 and 221A. 

However, one comment was submitted 

in duplicate, so only 14 comments are 

posted to the public docket. One 

comment (comment 6) requested a 90- 

day extension of the comment period. In 

response to the request, the petitioner 

submitted a comment (comment 8) 

expressing his opposition to a comment 

period extension. In Notice No. 221A, 

TTB agreed to extend the comment 

period for an additional 60 days. 

Eight comments (comments 4, 5, 7, 9, 

11, 12, 13, and 14) expressed support for 

the proposed AVA. Three of those 

comments (comments 4, 7, and 9) 

support the proposed AVA without 

suggesting any additional changes. 

Three of the supporting comments 

(comments 5, 11, 13, and 14) express 

support for the proposed AVA if certain 

changes to the boundary are made. 

These proposed changes, and TTB’s 

response to the requests, are discussed 

later in this document. The original 

petitioner submitted a comment 

(comment 12) agreeing to the proposed 

boundary changes. 

One comment (comment 1) does not 

specifically support or oppose the 

proposed AVA but instead expresses 

concern that an AVA designation would 

provide tax breaks for vineyard owners 

and other landowners within the area. 

The commenter also expressed concern 

that property taxes on other property 

owners in Napa County outside of the 

proposed AVA would increase to make 

up for the loss of tax revenue that tax 

breaks would cause. In response, the 

petitioner submitted a comment 

(comment 2) stating that California does 

not provide tax breaks for properties 

within an AVA. The comment goes on 

to say that ‘‘property in California is 

subject to Proposition 13 which 

establishes a base year assessed value 

upon purchase or new construction,’’ 

and the establishment of an AVA would 

not impact a property’s ‘‘factored base 

year assessed value’’. 

Property taxes and tax assessments 

are local matters and are outside TTB’s 

authority and the scope of this proposed 

rulemaking document. TTB’s 

establishment of an AVA through the 

federal rulemaking process does not in 

itself have a tax effect. 

Comment 3 also does not specifically 

express support for or opposition to the 

proposed AVA. The comment includes 

a link to a newspaper article about the 

proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley 

AVA. The commenter notes that the 

article’s writer frequently refers to the 

proposed AVA simply as ‘‘Crystal 

Springs,’’ and appears to be concerned 

that truncating the name could lead to 

confusion. Instead, the commenter 

states that the writer ‘‘missed the 

opportunity to explain how an AVA that 

technically mentions another AVA in its 

name as Crystal Springs of Napa Valley 

might, does not lead to brand 

confusion.’’ In Notice No. 221, TTB 

proposed that the name ‘‘Crystal Springs 

of Napa Valley’’ be recognized as a 

name of viticultural significance. As 

TTB stated in that notice, TTB is not 

proposing to make ‘‘Crystal Springs’’ 

standing alone a term of viticultural 

significance, due to the number of other 

locations in the United States. that are 

known simply as ‘‘Crystal Springs.’’ 

Therefore, in this final rule, TTB is 

finalizing its proposal that only the full 

AVA name may appear as an 

appellation of origin on wine labels. 

One commenter (comment 10) claims 

to be the ‘‘real owner of Chrystal [sic] 

Springs of Napa Valley’’ but provided 

no explanation or supporting 

information. TTB notes that designation 

of an AVA does not confer or change 

ownership of property within the AVA, 

and that there is no ‘‘owner’’ of an AVA. 

Establishment of an AVA simply 

permits winemakers to provide 

additional information to consumers 

about the origin of the grapes used to 

make their wine, and providing that 

information is voluntary. Any 

winemaker may label their wines with 

the AVA name as an appellation of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83433 

origin if the wines meet the regulatory 

requirements for use of the AVA name. 

Furthermore, TTB notes that the Bureau 

has not identified any labels that use the 

name ‘‘Crystal (or ‘‘Chrystal’’) Springs of 

Napa Valley.’’ Therefore, TTB does not 

believe that establishment of the 

‘‘Crystal Springs of Napa Valley’’ AVA 

will affect any wine industry member’s 

use of their business name on their wine 

label, nor did any commenter indicate 

that establishing the AVA would have 

that affect. 

Comment 13, submitted by Napa 

Valley Vintners (NVV), proposes several 

changes to the boundary of the proposed 

Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA. 

The first change would remove a partial 

overlap with the established St. Helena 

AVA. As originally proposed, the 

southernmost portion of the Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA boundary, 

which follows the 400-foot elevation 

contour, would partially overlap the St. 

Helena AVA. To remove the overlap, 

NVV suggests following the 400-foot 

elevation contour to the point where it 

meets the St. Helena city limits, which 

forms the boundary of the St. Helena 

AVA, and then following the city limits 

until they again intersect the 400-foot 

elevation. NVV notes that the St. Helena 

city limits are not shown on the 2015 

USGS St. Helena quadrangle map the 

petitioner used to draw the proposed 

AVA boundary. Instead, NVV 

recommends using the version of the 

map that was used to create the St. 

Helena AVA boundary, which is the 

1960 (revised 1993) version. 

Appellation St. Helena and the Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA petitioner 

both submitted comments supporting 

the proposed boundary change 

(comments 5 and 12, respectively). TTB 

agrees with the comments and is 

amending the proposed boundary to 

eliminate the partial overlap with the 

established St. Helena AVA and to 

utilize the version of the USGS map that 

shows the St. Helena city limits. 

In comment 13, NVV also requested 

substituting the 1960 (revised 1993) 

version of the St. Helena quadrangle 

map for the 2015 version to avoid the 

appearance of a second partial overlap 

with the St. Helena AVA. NVV notes 

that the 1960 version of the map shows 

the 400-foot elevation contour extending 

into the Bell Canyon reservoir, while the 

2015 version stops the elevation contour 

at the reservoir’s dam. The NVV states 

that, as a result, the proposed Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley’s use of the 400- 

foot elevation contour for its boundary 

gives the appearance of a partial overlap 

with the St. Helena AVA at the 

reservoir. TTB notes that although the 

use of different versions of the map 

gives the appearance of a partial 

overlap, such an overlap does not 

actually exist because both the St. 

Helena AVA boundary description and 

the proposed AVA boundary 

description follow the 400-foot 

elevation contour. As such, even though 

the 2015 version of the map does not 

show the contour extending into the 

reservoir, the contour still exists, and 

the boundaries of both AVAs still follow 

it. As discussed earlier, TTB has agreed 

to adopt the older version of the map for 

the Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA 

boundary description in order to use the 

St. Helena city limits to remove another 

partial overlap. Adopting the older map 

will also eliminate any confusion about 

the location of the St. Helena and 

proposed Crystal Springs of Napa Valley 

AVAs’ boundaries near the Bell Canyon 

reservoir. 

Calistoga AVA Boundary Modification 

Comments 

One comment (comment 11) 

requested a change to the proposed 

AVA boundary to fully include a 

vineyard, which is currently split 

between the proposed AVA and the 

established Calistoga AVA (27 CFR 

9.209). The vineyard, known as the 

Crystal Springs Vineyard, sits along 

North Fork of Crystal Springs Road 

between the northwestern portion of the 

proposed AVA and the eastern portion 

of the Calistoga AVA. Approximately 11 

acres of the vineyard are within the 

Calistoga AVA, and the remaining 6 

acres are within the proposed Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA. The 

comment points out that the vineyard’s 

name shows a current association with 

the proposed ‘‘Crystal Springs of Napa 

Valley’’ name. The comment also states 

that elevations within the vineyard are 

between 500 and 1,200 feet, which is 

within the range of elevations in the 

proposed AVA and higher than the floor 

of the Calistoga Valley, and it has a 

similar climate and hillside topography 

and soils as the proposed AVA. 

The NVV comment (comment 13) also 

requests this boundary change and 

includes a letter from the Calistoga 

Wine Growers organization that 

supports the change. The NVV comment 

also suggests replacing the 2015 USGS 

Calistoga quadrangle map used to draw 

the proposed AVA with the 1997 

version used to draw the original 

Calistoga AVA, to ensure that the 

proposed revisions to both boundaries 

refer to the same marked features and 

will align with the other maps used to 

make the remainder of the Calistoga 

AVA boundary. The proposed Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA petitioner 

also submitted a comment (comment 12) 

expressing support for these changes. 

After reviewing the comments and 

related documents, TTB is making this 

change to the boundaries of the 

Calistoga AVA and the proposed Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA so that the 

Crystal Springs Vineyard is located 

entirely within the Crystal Springs of 

Napa Valley AVA. 

TTB Determination 

After careful review of the petition 

and the comments received in response 

to Notice No. 221, TTB finds that the 

evidence provided by the petitioner 

supports establishing the Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA with the 

boundary modifications requested in the 

comments. 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 establishes the 

‘‘Crystal Springs of Napa Valley’’ AVA 

in Napa County, California, effective 30 

days from the publication date of this 

document. TTB is also modifying the 

boundary of the established Calistoga 

AVA, as requested during the comment 

period, effective 30 days from the 

publication of this document. 

TTB has also determined that the 

Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA 

will remain part of the established 

North Coast and Napa Valley AVAs. As 

discussed in Notice No. 221, the Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA shares 

some broad characteristics with the 

established AVAs. For example, the 

proposed AVA is comprised of hillside 

slopes, which also occur in the North 

Coast and Napa Valley AVAs, and it 

also has a marine-influenced climate. 

However, the proposed AVA lacks flat 

valleys, which are common in both the 

North Coast and Napa Valley AVAs, and 

it is not as influenced by the ocean as 

the more coastal regions of the North 

Coast AVA. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative description of the 

boundary of the Crystal Springs of Napa 

Valley AVA and the modified Calistoga 

AVA boundary in the regulatory text 

published at the end of this final rule. 

Maps 

The petitioners provided the required 

maps, and they are listed below in the 

regulatory text. The Crystal Springs of 

Napa Valley AVA boundary and the 

modified Calistoga AVA boundary may 

also be viewed on the AVA Map 

Explorer on the TTB website, at https:// 

www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
83434 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. For a 

wine to be labeled with an AVA name 

or with a brand name that includes an 

AVA name, at least 85 percent of the 

wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name, and the wine must meet the 

other conditions listed in 27 CFR 

4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for 

labeling with an AVA name and that 

name appears in the brand name, then 

the label is not in compliance and the 

bottler must change the brand name and 

obtain approval of a new label. 

Similarly, if the AVA name appears in 

another reference on the label in a 

misleading manner, the bottler would 

have to obtain approval of a new label. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing an AVA name 

that was used as a brand name on a 

label approved before July 7, 1986. See 

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

With the establishment of the Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA, its name, 

‘‘Crystal Springs of Napa Valley,’’ will 

be recognized as a name of viticultural 

significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the 

TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The 

text of the regulation clarifies this point. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using the 

name ‘‘Crystal Springs of Napa Valley’’ 

in a brand name, including a trademark, 

or in another label reference as to the 

origin of the wine, will have to ensure 

that the product is eligible to use the 

AVA name as an appellation of origin. 

TTB is not designating ‘‘Crystal 

Springs,’’ standing alone, as a term of 

viticultural significance due to the 

number of locations in the United States 

and elsewhere known as ‘‘Crystal 

Springs.’’ 

The establishment of the Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley AVA will not 

affect the existing North Coast or Napa 

Valley AVAs, and any bottlers using 

‘‘North Coast’’ or ‘‘Napa Valley’’ as an 

appellation of origin or in a brand name 

for wines made from grapes grown 

within the North Coast or Napa Valley 

AVAs will not be affected by the 

establishment of this new AVA. The 

establishment of the Crystal Springs of 

Napa Valley AVA will allow vintners to 

use ‘‘Crystal Springs of Napa Valley,’’ 

‘‘Napa Valley,’’ and ‘‘North Coast’’ as 

appellations of origin for wines made 

primarily from grapes grown within the 

Crystal Springs of Napa Valley AVA if 

the wines meet the eligibility 

requirements for these appellations. 

After November 16, 2026, bottlers 

who use ‘‘Calistoga’’ as an appellation of 

origin on wines made primarily from 

grapes grown in the area that was 

removed from the Calistoga AVA will 

no longer be able to use ‘‘Calistoga’’ as 

an appellation of origin and would only 

be eligible to use ‘‘Crystal Springs of 

Napa Valley,’’ ‘‘North Coast,’’ ‘‘Napa 

Valley,’’ or a combination of these 

appellations as appellations of origin on 

those wines. 

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, as 

amended. Therefore, no regulatory 

assessment is required. 

Drafting Information 

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division drafted this final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

The Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter 

I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

■ 2. Amend § 9.209 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(8) and (9) to read as 

follows: 

§ 9.209 Calistoga. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(8) Follows the 400-foot contour line 

easterly approximately 0.6 mile to its 

intersection with the eastern edge of the 

Calistoga map, denoted by a north-south 

longitude line labeled as longitude 122 

degrees, 30 minutes; 

(9) Continues north along the 

longitude line approximately 0.5 mile to 

its intersection with the 880-foot 

contour line in section 2, T8N/R6W; 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Subpart C is amended by adding 

§ 9.296 to read as follows: 

§ 9.296 Crystal Springs of Napa Valley. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley’’. For purposes 

of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Crystal 

Springs of Napa Valley’’ is a term of 

viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The two United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the 

viticultural area are titled: 

(1) St. Helena, CA, 1960, revised 1993; 

and 

(2) Calistoga, CA, 1997. 

(c) Boundary. The Crystal Springs of 

Napa Valley viticultural area is located 

in Napa County, California. Within the 

boundary description that follows, the 

viticultural area encompasses all areas 

at or below 1,400 feet in elevation. The 

boundary of the Crystal Springs of Napa 

Valley viticultural area is as described 

as follows: 

(1) The beginning point is on the St. 

Helena map at the intersection of 

Howell Mountain Road and White 

Cottage Road. From the beginning point, 

proceed southeasterly along Howell 

Mountain Road to its intersection with 

the St. Helena city limits in section 29, 

T8N/R5W; then 

(2) Proceed west then south along the 

St. Helena city limits to its intersection 

with the 400-foot elevation contour 

along the western edge of section 29, 

T8N/R5W; then 

(3) Proceed northwesterly along the 

400-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with the western edge of 

the St. Helena map, denoted by the 

north-south longitude line labeled as 

longitude 122 degrees, 30 minutes; then 

(4) Proceed due north along the 

longitude line approximately 0.5 mile to 

its intersection with the 880-foot 

elevation contour in section 2, T8N/ 

R6W; then 

(5) Proceed northwesterly along the 

meandering 880-foot elevation contour, 

crossing onto the Calistoga map, and 

continuing along the elevation contour 

(with a brief return to the St. Helena 

map) to its intersection with Biter Creek 

in the section 34, T9N/R6W, on the 

Calistoga map; then 

(6) Proceed northerly (upstream) 

along Biter Creek to its intersection with 

the 1,400-foot elevation contour; then 

(7) Proceed southeasterly along the 

meandering 1,400-foot elevation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 83435 

contour, crossing onto the St. Helena 

map, to the intersection of the elevation 

contour with White Cottage Road; then 

(8) Proceed easterly along White 

Cottage Road for approximately 130 feet, 

returning to the beginning point. 

Signed: October 4, 2024. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: October 7, 2024. 

Aviva R. Aron-Dine, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Tax Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23655 Filed 10–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2024–0400] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Townsend Gut, Southport, ME 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

temporarily revising the operating 

schedule that governs the Southport 

(SR27) Bridge at mile 0.7 across 

Townsend Gut between Boothbay 

Harbor and Southport, ME. This action 

is necessary to allow Maine Department 

of Transportation (ME DOT) to conduct 

rehabilitation of the bridge. During the 

effective period, the bridge will be 

unable to open to marine traffic due to 

an operational imbalance while the 

work is being conducted. 

DATES: This rule is effective without 

actual notice from October 16, 2024, 

through 11:59 p.m. on May 30, 2025. 

For purposes of enforcement, actual 

notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on 

September 30, 2024 through October 16, 

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–2024–0400 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 Mr. Gary Croot, First Coast Guard 

District, Project Officer, telephone 206– 

815–1364, email Gary.T.Croot@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 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

On June 21, 2024, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM), with a request for 

comments, entitled ‘‘Drawbridge 

Operation Regulation; Townsend Gut, 

Southport, ME’’, in the Federal Register 

(89 FR 51993), to seek your comments 

on whether the Coast Guard should 

consider temporarily modifying the 

current operating schedule to the 

Southport (SR27) Bridge. During the 

comment period which ended July 22, 

2024, no public comments were 

received. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The 

Southport Swing Bridge carries Maine 

State Route 27 across Townsend Gut at 

mile 0.7 between Boothbay Harbor, ME 

and Southport, ME. The bridge has a 

vertical clearance of 10.0 feet at Mean 

High Water and 52.0 feet horizontal 

clearance when in the closed position. 

Waterway users include recreational 

boaters and commercial fishing vessels. 

The existing drawbridge operating 

regulation is 33 CFR 117.537 and 

requires the bridge to open on request, 

except that from April 29 through 

September 30, between 6 a.m. and 6 

p.m. the draw shall open on signal on 

the hour and half hour only, after an 

opening request is given. 

ME DOT requested a temporary 

change to the regulation to allow the 

bridge to remain in the closed to 

navigation position so they can conduct 

bridge rehabilitation which includes 

replacing the bridge deck, and electrical 

and mechanical systems upgrades. The 

bridge will be unable to open to marine 

traffic due to an operational imbalance 

while the work is being conducted. 

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes 

and the Final Rule 

The public comment period opened 

on June 21, 2024, and closed on July 22, 

2024. No public comments were 

received during the public comment 

period. 

This temporary final rule will stay the 

current regulation in § 117.537, which 

requires the Southport (SR27) Bridge to 

open on request from October 1 through 

April 28. From April 29 through 

September 30, the bridge is required to 

open on request from 6 p.m. through 6 

a.m. and on request on the hour and half 

hour only from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. 

This temporary final rule adds a 

temporary regulation in § 117.T538 to 

allow the bridge to remain in the closed 

to navigation position from September 

30, 2024 through May 30, 2025. Vessels 

that can pass under the bridge while in 

the closed position may do so. Vessels 

that are too large to pass under the 

bridge while in the closed position may 

navigate around Southport Island. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Accordingly, it has not been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the ability of vessels to use 

an alternate route. Vessels that are able 

to pass under the bridge while in the 

closed position may continue to do so. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires federal agencies to consider the 

potential impact of regulations on small 

entities during rulemaking. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard received no comments 

from the Small Business Administration 

on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the bridge 

may be small entities, for the reasons 

stated in section V.A above, this rule 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1