13238 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Reauthorization Act (Pub L., 108–176), 

which established a joint planning and 

development office in the FAA to 

manage the work related to the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen). Today, NextGen is an 

ongoing FAA-led modernization of the 

nation’s air transportation system to 

make flying safer, more efficient, and 

more predictable. 

In support of NextGen, this proposal 

is part of a larger and comprehensive Troute modernization project in the state 

of Alaska. The project mission statement 

states: ‘‘To modernize Alaska’s Air 

Traffic Service route structure using 

satellite based navigation Development 

of new T-routes and optimization of 

existing T-routes will enhance safety, 

increase efficiency and access, and will 

provide enroute continuity that is not 

subject to the restrictions associated 

with ground based airway navigation.’’ 

As part of this project, the FAA 

evaluated the existing Colored airway 

structure for: (a) Direct replacement (i.e., 

overlay) with a T-route that offers a 

similar or lower Minimum Enroute 

Altitude (MEA) or Global Navigation 

Satellite System Minimum Enroute 

Altitude (GNSS MEA); (b) the 

replacement of the Colored airway with 

a T-route in an optimized but similar 

geographic area, while retaining similar 

or lower MEA; or (c) removal with no 

route structure (T-route) restored in that 

area because the value was determined 

to be insignificant. 

The aviation industry/users have 

indicated a desire for the FAA to 

transition the Alaskan en route 

navigation structure away from 

dependency on Non-Directional 

Beacons (NDB), and move to develop 

and improve the RNAV route structure. 

During a recent review of T–225 by the 

FAA, it was determined that there are 

two turn points along the route that are 

not included in the legal description 

contained in the FAA Order JO 

7400.11F. In order to match what is 

depicted on the charts, the FAA 

proposes to amend the legal description 

to include the KUHZE, AK, Fix and the 

FECFO, AK, Fix between the Galena, 

AK, (GAL) VHF Omnidirectional Range 

with Distance Measuring Equipment 

(VOR/DME) and the Tanana, AK (TAL) 

VOR/DME. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to 14 CFR part 71 to amend RNAV route 

T–225 in the vicinity of Galena, AK in 

support of a large comprehensive Troute modernization project for the state 

of Alaska. The proposed amendment is 

described below. 

T–225: The FAA proposes to amend 

T–225 by including the KUHZE, AK, Fix 

and the FECFO, AK, Fix between GAL 

and TAL, due to them being turn points 

along the route. The rest of the route 

would remain unchanged. 

United States Area Navigation Routes 

are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA 

Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 

2021 and effective September 15, 2021, 

which is incorporated by reference in 14 

CFR 71.1. The RNAV route listed in this 

document would be published 

subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, is 

published yearly and effective on 

September 15. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 10, 2021, and 

effective September 15, 2021, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6011 United States Area 

Navigation Routes. 

* * * * * 

T–225 Hooper Bay, AK (HPB) to Fairbanks, 

AK (FAI) [Amended] 

Hooper Bay, AK (HPB) VOR/DME 

(Lat. 61°30′51.65′′ N, long. 166°08′04.13′′ 

W) 

Unalakleet, AK (UNK) VOR/DME 

(Lat. 63°53′30.99′′ N, long. 160°41′03.39′′ 

W) 

Galena, AK (GAL) VOR/DME 

(Lat. 64°44′17.26′′ N, long. 156°46′37.69′′ 

W) 

KUHZE, AK Fix 

(Lat. 64°49′38.37′′ N, long. 156°01′53.87′′ 

W) 

FECFO, AK Fix 

(Lat. 64°51′10.69′′ N, long. 155°43′12.09′′ 

W) 

Tanana, AK (TAL) VOR/DME 

(Lat. 65°10′37.65′′ N, long. 152°10′39.18′′ 

W) 

Fairbanks, AK (FAI) VORTAC 

(Lat. 64°48′00.25′′ N, long. 148°00′43.11′′ 

W) 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 

2022. 

Scott M. Rosenbloom, 

Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04911 Filed 3–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2022–0003; Notice No. 

209] 

RIN 1513–AC79 

Proposed Establishment of the Long 

Valley-Lake County Viticultural Area 

and Modification of the High Valley and 

North 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 7,605-acre 

‘‘Long Valley-Lake County’’ viticultural 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 13239 

area in Lake County, California. 

Additionally, TTB proposes to expand 

the boundary of the established 14,000- 

acre High Valley viticultural area by 

approximately 1,542 acres in order to 

create a contiguous border with the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

viticultural area. Only the western third 

of the proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County viticultural area, and 

approximately three quarters of the High 

Valley viticultural area, would lie 

within the established, multi-county 

North Coast viticultural area. To avoid 

this partial overlap with the High Valley 

and proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

viticultural areas, TTB is proposing to 

expand the boundary of the North Coast 

viticultural area by approximately 

23,690 acres. 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 9, 2022. 

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–2022– 

0003, 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 

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 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 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 Long ValleyLake County AVA and To Modify the 

Boundaries of the High Valley and 

North Coast AVAs 

TTB received a petition from Terry 

Dereniuk, owner of Terry Dereniuk 

Consulting, and Don Van Pelt and Clay 

Shannon, of Cache Creek Vineyards and 

the Shannon Family of Wines, 

proposing to establish the ‘‘Long ValleyLake County’’ AVA and to modify the 

boundaries of the existing High Valley 

(27 CFR 9.189) and North Coast (27 CFR 

9.30) AVAs. The petition was submitted 

on behalf of Long Valley wine grape 

growers. The proposed Long ValleyLake County AVA is located in Lake 

County, California, and is partially 

within the existing North Coast AVA. 

The proposed AVA is also to the north 

and east of the established High Valley 

AVA. The approximately 7,605-acre 

proposed AVA currently contains 3 

wineries and 5 commercial vineyards, 

which cover a total of approximately 

149 acres. 

The western third of the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA, and 

approximately three quarters of the High 

Valley AVA, would lie within the 

existing North Coast AVA. To address 

the partial overlap and account for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13240 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1History of Napa and Lake Counties, California 

(Slocum, Bowen, & Co., Publishers 1881) page 89. 

See also Figure 1 of the petition in Docket TTB– 

2022–0003 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

2 James Hilly, Upper Lake, A Description of Lake 

County California, published by authority of the 

Board of Supervisors, 1888, page 8. 

3Upson, J.E., and Fred Kinkel. Ground Water of 

the Lower Lake-Middletown Area Lake County, 

California. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

1297. Washington: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 1955. 

4California Department of Water Resources. 

California’s Ground Water Bulletin 118. California 

Department of Water Resources: 1975. Updated 

2004. 

5The Shoreline Communities Area Plan prepared 

by Lake County Community Development 

Department, page 1–3. 

6https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/WyeFire-in-Lake-County-Burns-Out-of-Control165934666.html. See also Appendix Exhibit 8 of the 

petition in Docket TTB–2022–0003 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

viticultural similarities, the petition also 

proposes to expand the boundary of the 

North Coast AVA so that the entire High 

Valley and proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County AVAs would be included within 

the North Coast AVA. The proposed 

expansion would increase the size of the 

North Coast AVA by 23,690 acres. 

Currently, there are five vineyards 

within the proposed North Coast AVA 

expansion area. The petition included 

three letters of support for the proposed 

expansion. 

Furthermore, the petition proposes to 

expand the boundary of the established 

High Valley AVA. The proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA lies to the 

north and east of the established AVA 

and shares a small part of its boundary. 

However, there is a small gap between 

the northern boundary of the High 

Valley AVA and the southern boundary 

of the proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County AVA. The petition proposes to 

expand the High Valley AVA 

northward, eliminating the gap and 

making the northern boundary of the 

High Valley AVA contiguous with the 

southern boundary of the proposed 

AVA. The proposed boundary 

modification would increase the size of 

the 14,000-acre High Valley AVA by 

approximately 1,542 acres. The petition 

included a letter from a member of the 

committee that originally proposed the 

establishment of the High Valley AVA. 

The letter supports the proposed High 

Valley AVA expansion as a way to avoid 

‘‘the creation of an area that will be part 

of neither’’ the High Valley AVA nor the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA. The expansion would affect one 

grower, dividing the grower’s acreage 

between the High Valley AVA and the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA. The petition included a letter 

from the grower, supporting the 

expansion and acknowledging its effect. 

Currently, there are no other vineyards 

within the proposed expansion area. 

The distinguishing features of the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA include its topography and 

elevation, geology, and climate. 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 Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA 

Name Evidence 

According to the petition, settlers 

began arriving in the region of the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA in the mid-1800s. An entry in the 

book History of Napa and Lake Counties 

shows that by the time the book was 

published in 1881, the region was 

already known as ‘‘Long Valley.’’ 1 The 

entry is a listing of the distances from 

Lakeport, California, to various other 

locations in Lake County, including a 

notation that ‘‘Long Valley’’ is 30 miles 

from Lakeport. Another description of 

Lake County published by the Lake 

County Board of Supervisors in 1888 

notes that, ‘‘Long Valley lies on the east 

side of Clear Lake, and is separated from 

it by a high range of mountains.’’ 2

The petition also included more 

recent evidence that the region of the 

proposed AVA is referred to as ‘‘Long 

Valley.’’ For example, a 1955 report on 

the ground water of Lake County 

includes a 4-page entry for ‘‘Long 

Valley’’ and notes that the valley is 

‘‘about 5 miles north of Clearlake 

Oaks.’’ 3 Long Valley is also identified 

on the 1996 USGS Clearlake Oaks 

quadrangle map used to form part of the 

proposed boundary. Two roads running 

through the proposed AVA are named 

New Long Valley Road and Old Long 

Valley Road, and a creek that runs along 

the valley floor is called Long Valley 

Creek. The roads and creek are shown 

on a 2015 AAA Road map included in 

the petition as Appendix Exhibit 6. In 

Ground Water Bulletin 118, the 

California Department of Water 

Resources designates the groundwater 

basin beneath the region of the proposed 

AVA as ‘‘Long Valley Groundwater 

Basin.’’ 4 The Shoreline Communities 

Area Plan prepared by the Lake County 

Development Department in 2009 notes, 

‘‘The primary areas within the planning 

area designated as agriculture include 

High Valley, Long Valley, and 

properties with active Williamson Act 

(Agricultural Preserve) contracts.’’ 5

Finally, a 2012 article about a wildfire 

in the Lake County states that the fire 

‘‘had people in the nearby Spring Valley 

and Long Valley communities under 

evacuation orders.’’ 6

Boundary Evidence 

The proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County AVA includes Long Valley, a 

long, narrow valley oriented along a 

northwest-southeast axis. The proposed 

AVA contains the valley floor as well as 

the surrounding hillsides and bench 

lands that rise from 200 to 500 feet 

above the valley floor. The proposed 

northern boundary primarily follows the 

1,400-foot elevation contour. The 

proposed AVA is bounded on the north 

by the Mendocino National Forest, 

which was excluded from the proposed 

AVA because it is not available for 

commercial viticulture. The proposed 

eastern boundary also primarily follows 

the 1,400-elevation contour and 

separates the proposed AVA from steep, 

mountainous terrain. The proposed 

AVA is bounded on the southwest by 

State Highway 20, which separates the 

proposed AVA from higher elevations 

and hillier terrain that lacks open valley 

floor, and on the southeast by the 1,200- 

foot elevation contour. The proposed 

western boundary follows the 1,600-foot 

elevation contour, which also separates 

the proposed AVA from the established 

High Valley AVA. 

Distinguishing Features 

According to the petition, the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA include 

its topography and elevation, geology, 

and climate. 

Topography and Elevation 

According to the petition, elevations 

and slope angles within the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA vary due 

to its topography of rolling foothills, 

benches, and valley floor. The median 

elevation of the valley floor is 

approximately 1,322 feet above sea 

level, while the lowest valley floor 

elevations are at the southern end of the 

proposed AVA and reach approximately 

1,063 feet above sea level. The foothills 

included in the proposed AVA rise an 

additional 200 to 500 feet above the 

valley floor. The valley floor and 

benches are generally flat with slopes 

from 0 to 10 percent. The hillsides are 

steeper, with slope angles in some areas 

reaching more than 30 percent. 

The petition states that the 

topography of the proposed AVA, with 

its long, narrow valley floor between 

surrounding mountains, provides a 

beneficial environment for viticulture. 

Air drainage provides protection from 

damaging late spring frosts in vineyards 

along the benches, which are higher 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 13241 

7See 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. 

8California Groundwater Bulletin 118, 

Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Long Valley 

Groundwater Basin 5–31, February 27, 2004. 

9The rainfall amounts were collected from July 

of the first year to June of the following year. 

10The rainfall amounts were collected from July 

of the first year to June of the following year. 

11The rainfall amounts were collected from 

January to December. 

than the valley floor. The petition notes 

that Noggle Vineyard and Winery, 

which is located on a bench on the west 

side of the proposed AVA, does not use 

mechanical frost protection methods 

and instead relies on the cold air 

drainage to protect its vines. Vineyards 

on the lower valley floor within the 

proposed AVA are at a higher risk for 

damaging frosts due to their flat slope 

angles and lower elevations. As a result, 

valley floor vineyards like the Shannon 

Ridge vineyards use frost protection 

methods such as overhead sprinklers. 

However, during the growing season, 

vineyards on the valley floor benefit 

from winds that blow through the valley 

and cool the vines from the heat of the 

day. 

To the west and southwest of the 

proposed AVA, the established High 

Valley AVA has higher elevations than 

the proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA. Elevations in the valley floor of 

the High Valley AVA are between 1,700 

and 1,800 feet, and elevations on the 

surrounding ridges are as high as 3,000 

feet. To the east and south of the 

proposed AVA are steep hillsides with 

slope angles exceeding 30 percent and 

elevations that rise to 2,000 feet at the 

highest peaks. 

Geology 

According to the petition, geology is 

a significant distinguishing feature of 

the proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA. The proposed AVA sits on what 

is known as the Cache Formation, 

which is estimated to be 1.6 to 2.8 

million years old and from the Pliocene 

and early Pleistocene period. The 

formation is largely made up of lake 

deposits and consists of tuffaceous and 

diatomaceous sands and silts, 

limestone, gravel, and intercalated 

volcanic rocks. The Cache Formation is 

the foundation for the soils of the 

proposed AVA and the nutrients found 

therein, meaning that the roots of vines 

grown in the Cache Formation will 

come into contact with a different set of 

minerals and nutrients than vines grown 

elsewhere. 

To the north and west of the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA, the 

primary geologic formation is the 

Franciscan Formation. This formation is 

comprised of Cretaceous and Jurassic 

sandstone with similar amounts of 

shale, chert, limestone, and 

conglomerate rocks from the Mesozoic 

period. To the east and south of the 

proposed AVA is the Great Valley 

Sequence. Holocene volcanic flow rocks 

and minor pyroclastic deposits, as well 

as the Franciscan Formation and 

ultramafic rocks, also occur to the south 

and east of the proposed AVA. 

Climate 

The petition provided information 

about the climate of the proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA, including 

annual rainfall amounts and growing 

degree day (GDD) accumulations.7 First, 

the petition notes that based on data 

from a California groundwater bulletin, 

annual rainfall amounts within the 

proposed AVA generally range between 

27 and 33 inches, increasing to the 

west.8 The bulletin states that to the 

southeast of the proposed Long ValleyLake County AVA, within the Clear 

Lake Cache Formation Groundwater 

Basin, annual precipitation amounts 

range from 25 to 29 inches. South of the 

proposed AVA, within the Burns Valley 

Basin, annual precipitation is 

approximately 27 inches. West and 

southwest of the proposed AVA, in the 

High Valley Groundwater Basin, annual 

precipitation ranges from 27 to 35 

inches, decreasing to the east; however, 

the petition notes that annual 

precipitation amounts within the High 

Valley AVA, which is located within the 

High Valley Groundwater Basin, can 

reach up to 54 inches. To the northwest 

of the proposed AVA is the Middle 

Creek Groundwater Basin, and the 

California groundwater bulletin 

indicates that annual precipitation 

amounts in that region range from 43 to 

45 inches, increasing to the north. 

Rainfall data was not provided for the 

regions to the north and east of the 

proposed AVA. 

The petition also includes 

measurements for rainfall amounts from 

three specific vineyard locations within 

the proposed AVA. Noggle Vineyards is 

located on a bench west of the southern 

end of the Long Valley floor. Garner 

Ranch is located in the western portion 

of the valley floor, which typically 

receives higher rainfall amounts than 

the eastern portion of the valley. Garner 

Ranch is also located at elevations lower 

than Noggle Vineyards and higher than 

Spring Valley. The Spring Valley 

location is located on the southeastern 

side of the valley floor, at elevations 

lower than both of the other two 

locations. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

AMOUNTS AT NOGGLE VINEYARDS 9

Year Inches 

2016–2017 ............................ 41.4 

2015–2016 ............................ 29.85 

2014–2015 ............................ 28 

2013–2014 ............................ 16.8 

2012–2013 ............................ 20.5 

2011–2012 ............................ 18.81 

2010–2011 ............................ 38.45 

2009–2010 ............................ 30.9 

2008–2009 ............................ 20.1 

2007–2008 ............................ 22.5 

2006–2007 ............................ 16.2 

2005–2006 ............................ 50.4 

2004–2005 ............................ 38.75 

2003–2004 ............................ 30.08 

2002–2003 ............................ 14.65 

Median Annual Rainfall ........ 28 

TABLE 2—ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

AMOUNTS AT GARNER RANCH 10

Year Inches 

2015–2016 ............................ 51.98 

2014–2015 ............................ 44.06 

2013–2014 ............................ 8.83 

2012–2013 ............................ 40.32 

2011–2012 ............................ 12.24 

2010–2011 ............................ 43.82 

2009–2010 ............................ 35.19 

2008–2009 ............................ 45.57 

2007–2008 ............................ 30.44 

2006–2007 ............................ 34.65 

2005–2006 ............................ 36.45 

2004–2005 ............................ 47.76 

2003–2004 ............................ 48.95 

2002–2003 ............................ 44.01 

2001–2002 ............................ 45.53 

Median Annual Rainfall ........ 43.82 

TABLE 3—ANNUAL PRECIPITATION

AMOUNTS IN SPRING VALLEY 11

Year Inches 

2017 ...................................... 43.15 

2016 ...................................... 29.6 

2015 ...................................... 26 

2014 ...................................... 15.5 

2013 ...................................... 22.5 

2012 ...................................... 20.7 

2011 ...................................... 40 

2010 ...................................... 30 

2009 ...................................... 22 

2008 ...................................... 22 

Median Annual Rainfall ........ 24.25 

According to the petition, annual 

rainfall plays a critical role in ensuring 

recharge of the underlying groundwater 

and providing water for irrigation. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13242 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12McGourty, Glenn, et al. Vineyard Water Use in 

Lake County, California. December 1, 2014. 

Accessed from https://

www.lakecountywinegrape.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2014/08/Lake-County-Vineyard-Water-UseUC-Cooperative-Extension-December-1-2014.pdf. 

13The Winkler scale GDD regions are as follows: 

Region Ia, 1,500–2,000; Region Ib, 2,000–2,500; 

Region II, 2,500–3,000; Region III, 3,000–3,500; 

Region IV, 3,500–4,000: Region V, 4,000–4,900. 14Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture 

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 

pages 61–64. 

15 Gregory V. Jones, Ph.D., Climate Characteristics 

for Winegrape Production in Lake County 

California, report for Lake County Winegrape 

Commission, www.lakecountywinegrape.org. 

Based on a recent study of wine grape 

production in Lake County,12 wine 

grapes require an average of 8 to 11 acre 

inches per year for irrigation purposes. 

The water is also used for frost 

protection in the lower, flatter portions 

of the proposed AVA. 

The petition also included 

information on annual growing degree 

day (GDD) accumulations within the 

proposed AVA. The petition included 

GDD information from three locations 

within the proposed AVA. However, 

because one of the locations only had 

data from two years and the second only 

had data from a single year, TTB is not 

including those locations in the 

following table. 

TABLE 4—GDD ACCUMULATIONS

FROM NOGGLE VINEYARDS

Year GDDs 

2016 ...................................... 3,377 

2015 ...................................... 3,596 

2014 ...................................... 3,668 

2013 ...................................... 3,355 

2012 ...................................... 3,305 

2011 ...................................... 2,955 

2010 ...................................... 2,882 

2009 ...................................... 3,416 

2008 ...................................... 3,432 

2007 ...................................... 3,126 

2006 ...................................... 3,355 

TABLE 4—GDD ACCUMULATIONS

FROM NOGGLE VINEYARDS—Continued 

Year GDDs 

2005 ...................................... 3,112 

2004 ...................................... 3,430 

2003 ...................................... 4,277 

Average ................................ 3,378 

Based on the data in the table, the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA is classified as Region III on the 

Winkler scale.13 According to the 

petition, a location’s classification on 

the Winkler scale can predict the site’s 

suitability for growing specific grape 

varieties.14 The petition states that 

Region III is favorable for high 

production of standard to good quality 

table wines.15 The proposed AVA is 

known for producing red wine grapes 

such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet 

Franc, Petite Sirah, and Syrah. 

By contrast, the established High 

Valley AVA, which is located to the 

immediate south and west of the 

proposed AVA, has annual GDD 

accumulations that range from a low of 

3,139 to a high of 3,775, with an average 

of 3,447. Farther south, in the 

established Red Hills Lake County AVA 

(27 CFR 9.169), annual GDD 

accumulations range from 3,155 to 

3,753, with a median of 3,595. These 

GDD accumulations suggest a warmer 

climate to the south and west of the 

proposed AVA and place the High 

Valley AVA in the higher end of Region 

III and the Red Hills Lake County AVA 

in the lower end of Region IV. However, 

farther to the west and southwest of the 

proposed AVA, in the established 

Benmore Valley (27 CFR 9.138), Big 

Valley District-Lake County (27 CFR 

9.232), and Kelsey Bench-Lake County 

(27 CFR 9.233) AVAs, median GDD 

accumulations are lower, at 3,248, 

3,245, and 3,250, respectively. To the 

southeast of the proposed AVA, the 

Capay Valley (27 CFR 9.176) and 

Guenoc Valley (27 CFR 9.26) AVAs have 

annual GDD accumulations ranging 

from 2,963–4,318 and 3,420–3,796, 

respectively, which suggests that this 

region has a warmer climate than the 

proposed AVA. The petition did not 

provide annual GDD accumulation 

averages for regions to the due north or 

due east of the proposed AVA. 

Summary of Distinguishing Features 

The following table summarizes the 

characteristics of the proposed Long 

Valley–Lake County AVA and compares 

them to the features of the surrounding 

regions. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF DISTINGUISHING FEATURES

Region Features 

Proposed AVA ................................ Valley floor, rolling hills, and benches; median elevation of 1,322 feet; valley floor and bench slope angles 

from 0 to 10 percent with steeper hillsides; primary geologic feature is Cache Formation comprised of 

tuffaceous and diatomaceous sands and silts, limestone, gravel, and intercalated volcanic rock; annual 

rainfall amounts from 27 to 33 inches within the Long Valley Groundwater Basin; average GDD accumulations of 3,378; Winkler scale Region III. 

North ............................................... Primary geologic feature is Franciscan Formation of sandstone, shale, chert, limestone, and conglomerate 

rocks; annual rainfall amounts in the Middle Creek Groundwater Basin (northwest of proposed AVA) 

range from 43 to 45 inches. 

East ................................................. Steep hillsides with slope angles exceeding 30 percent; primary geologic feature is Great Valley Sequence 

with Holocene volcanic flow rocks and minor pyroclastic deposits; annual rainfall amounts within Clear 

Lake Cache Formation Groundwater Basin (southeast of proposed AVA) range from 25 to 29 inches. 

South ............................................... Primary geologic feature is Great Valley Sequence with Holocene volcanic flow rocks and minor pyroclastic 

deposits; annual rainfall amount in the Burns Valley Basin is 27 inches; higher GDD accumulations. 

West ................................................ Higher elevations up to 3,000 feet; annual rainfall amounts in High Valley Groundwater Basin ranges from 

27 to 35 inches; higher GDD accumulations. 

Comparison of the Proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA to the Existing 

North Coast AVA 

The North Coast AVA was established 

by T.D. ATF–145, which was published 

in the Federal Register on September 

21, 1983 (48 FR 42973). T.D. ATF–145 

describes the topography of the North 

Coast AVA as ‘‘flat valleys and tillable 

hillsides surrounded by mountains.’’ 

The North Coast AVA is generally 

characterized as having climatic Regions 

I through III on the Winkler scale. The 

average annual rainfall amount in the 

North Coast AVA is 36.2 inches. 

The proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County AVA is partially located within 

the North Coast AVA and shares some 

of the characteristics of the larger 

established AVA. For example, similar 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 13243 

16https://www.wineinstitute.org/resources/ 

consumerfeaturedstories/article338. 

17https://www.camp-california.com/rv-campingdestination/north-coast. 

18Randi Rossman, Martin Espinoza and Kevin 

McCallum. ‘‘Pawnee fire in Lake County jumps to 

11,500 acres.’’ The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, June 

25, 2018. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/ 

8468876-181/pawnee-fire-in-lake-county. See also 

Appendix Exhibit 18 to the petition in Docket TTB– 

2022–0003 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

to other locations in the North Coast 

AVA, Long Valley is a northwestsoutheast oriented valley surrounded by 

tillable foothills or hillsides suitable for 

planting wine grapes and steeper 

mountains. The proposed AVA is also 

classified as Region III on the Winkler 

scale, which is within the range of 

classifications found in the North Coast 

AVA. The western portion of the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA, which is entirely located within 

the North Coast AVA, has average 

annual precipitation amounts that are 

similar to those of the North Coast AVA. 

However, due to lower average annual 

rainfall amounts in its eastern portion, 

the smaller proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County as a whole has lower average 

rainfall amounts than the large, multicounty North Coast AVA. 

Proposed Modification of the North 

Coast AVA 

As previously noted, the petition to 

establish the proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County AVA also requested an 

expansion of the established North 

Coast AVA. The proposed Long ValleyLake County AVA is located along the 

eastern boundary of the North Coast 

AVA. The western third of the proposed 

AVA would, if established, be located 

within the current boundary of the 

North Coast AVA. However, unless the 

boundary of the North Coast AVA is 

modified, the remaining two-thirds of 

the proposed AVA would be outside the 

North Coast AVA. Additionally, the 

established High Valley AVA currently 

partially overlaps the North Coast AVA. 

If approved, the proposed North Coast 

AVA expansion would place both the 

High Valley AVA and the adjacent 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA entirely within the North Coast 

AVA. 

Currently, the North Coast AVA 

boundary in the vicinity of the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA and the 

proposed expansion area follows a 

straight line drawn from the southern 

boundary of the Mendocino National 

Forest to the summit of Round 

Mountain, which is within the 

established High Valley AVA. The 

boundary then follows a straight line 

from Round Mountain to the summit of 

Bally Peak and then to the summit of 

Brushy Sky High Mountain. The 

proposed boundary modification would 

move the North Coast AVA boundary 

east. The proposed boundary 

modification would begin at the point 

where the current boundary intersects 

the summit of Evans Peak. From there, 

the proposed boundary would proceed 

southeasterly in a straight line to the 

summit of Chalk Mountain, and then 

continue in a straight line southeasterly 

to the summit of Red Rocks. Finally, the 

boundary would proceed southeasterly 

to the summit of Brushy Sky High 

Mountain, where it would rejoin the 

current boundary. The proposed 

boundary modification would add 

23,690 acres to the North Coast AVA. 

The expansion petition notes that at 

the time the North Coast AVA was 

established, the High Valley AVA did 

not exist and there was limited 

viticultural activity in the region. Now, 

several vineyards and wineries exist 

within the proposed expansion area. 

The petition included letters of support 

for the proposed North Coast AVA 

expansion from a Lake County attorney 

and wine grape grower, the University 

of California Cooperative Extension 

Winegrape and Plant Science Advisor, 

and the president of the Lake County 

Winegrape Commission. 

The petition included evidence that, 

although only a portion of Lake County 

was originally included in the North 

Coast AVA, the name ‘‘North Coast’’ 

applies to the region of the county that 

is within the proposed expansion area, 

as well. For example, the Wine 

Institute’s web page states, ‘‘The 

western portion of Lake County 

comprises the North Coast AVA. It 

encompasses the Clear Lake AVA, 

* * * the Red Hills Lake County AVA, 

and High Valley AVA.’’ 16 The petition 

notes that the Wine Institute’s web page 

does not distinguish between the 

western portion of the High Valley AVA 

and the eastern portion, which is not 

within the North Coast AVA, suggesting 

that the proposed expansion area is 

associated with the North Coast AVA 

even though it is not technically part of 

it. The petition also states that an online 

directory of Californian camping 

locations mentions that the ‘‘southern 

portion of the North Coast is largely 

urbanized and it includes Sonoma, 

Napa and Lake Counties.’’ 17 As the 

petition notes, the website includes all 

of Lake County within the region known 

as the ‘‘North Coast’’ and does not 

distinguish between the western and 

eastern portions of the county. 

The expansion petition claims that 

the proposed North Coast AVA 

expansion area has features that are 

similar to those described as 

distinguishing features of the North 

Coast AVA in T.D. ATF–145, namely 

cooling winds, growing degree days, 

and rainfall. First, the expansion 

petition describes the wind patterns 

within the proposed expansion area and 

the North Coast AVA. T.D. ATF–145 

notes, ‘‘While confirming that Lake 

County does not receive coastal fog, 

evidence was presented that coastal air 

flows through gaps in the mountains 

and across Clear Lake, cooling the area 

surrounding the Lake * * *.’’ The 

expansion petition notes that two of 

these gaps are northwest of the High 

Valley AVA, the proposed Long ValleyLake County AVA, and the proposed 

expansion area and likely influence air 

flow from the west. The gaps are 

illustrated in two maps included in the 

expansion petition as Figures 31 and 32. 

The petition also included a wind 

map of the northern coastal regions of 

California (Figure 33) which shows 

winds moving eastward into the 

proposed expansion area before turning 

to the north. Although the wind map 

only shows the wind pattern for a single 

day in 2018, it does suggest that marine 

winds can reach the proposed North 

Coast AVA expansion area. The petition 

also included an article about a 2018 

wildfire in the Spring Valley region of 

the proposed expansion area that 

provides anecdotal evidence of marine 

air reaching the proposed expansion 

area. The article states, ‘‘While the 

Sunday winds wreaked havoc on 

firefighting efforts, they also helped pull 

in a heavy marine layer overnight that 

brought a welcomed spike in humidity. 

Much of Sonoma County was bathed in 

fog Monday morning and that same 

coastal influence helped keep moisture 

levels up—and temperatures down—at 

the fire.’’ 18

Next, the expansion petition 

compared the GDDs of the proposed 

North Coast AVA expansion area to 

those of the established North Coast 

AVA. T.D. ATF–145 concludes that the 

North Coast AVA is ‘‘generally 

characterized as having climatic Regions 

I through III on the Winkler scale,’’ and 

cites assertions from grape growers in 

Lake County that the portions of Lake 

County currently within the North Coast 

AVA have Region II and Region III 

climates. As noted previously, GDD 

accumulations for Noggle Vineyard, 

which is within the proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA and the 

proposed North Coast AVA expansion 

area, place it in Region III. The 

expansion petition also included a map 

(Figure 36) showing average GDD 

accumulations for Lake County based on 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13244 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

19All figures and exhibits to the petition can be 

viewed in Docket TTB–2022–0003 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

20The petition mentioned the following soils 

within the proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA: Lupoyoma silt loam, Wolf Creek gravelly 

loam, Maywood variant sandy loam, Manzanita 

gravelly loam, and Phipps Complex soil. 

temperature data from 1971 to 2000. 

The map shows that both the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA and the 

portion of the High Valley AVA that is 

within the proposed North Coast AVA 

expansion area have GDD 

accumulations similar to the portion of 

the High Valley AVA that is currently 

within the North Coast AVA. 

Additionally, the proposed expansion 

area’s GDD accumulations are similar to 

those of the established Red Hills Lake 

County AVA, which is entirely within 

the North Coast AVA. 

Finally, the proposed North Coast 

AVA expansion petition compares 

annual rainfall amounts within the 

proposed expansion area to those in the 

established North Coast AVA. T.D. 

ATF–145 concluded that rainfall within 

the North Coast AVA ‘‘varies widely 

from 24.8 inches at Napa State Hospital 

to 62.2 inches in Middletown.’’ T.D. 

ATF–145 cited evidence that the 

western portion of Lake County 

currently within the North Coast AVA 

receives an average of 38.9 inches of 

rainfall annually at 5 weather stations, 

ranging from 28.9 inches at one station 

to 62.2 inches at another, and that 

Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, 

which are also within the North Coast 

AVA, receive an average of 39.7 and 

34.7 inches of rain, respectively. 

As previously discussed, the North 

Coast AVA expansion petition provided 

rainfall data from two locations within 

the southern half of the proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA that are also 

within the proposed North Coast AVA 

expansion area. The average annual 

rainfall amounts at Noggle Vineyards 

and Spring Valley were 27.8 and 27.1 

inches, respectively, which is lower 

than the average annual rainfall 

amounts for Mendocino County, 

Sonoma County and western Lake 

County, as described in T.D. ATF–145. 

However, the expansion petition also 

provided more recent rainfall averages 

from seven Lake County weather 

stations that are currently within the 

North Coast AVA (Figure 43).19 The data 

was gathered from 2012 to 2017. 

Rainfall averages from those locations 

ranged from a low of 23.68 at 

Kelseyville to 44.6 inches at 

Middletown. The petition states that, 

based in part on these rainfall amounts, 

the proposed expansion area’s annual 

rainfall amounts are comparable to other 

Lake County locations that are currently 

within the North Coast AVA. 

Proposed Modification of the High 

Valley AVA 

As previously noted, the petition to 

establish the proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County AVA also requested an 

expansion of the established High 

Valley AVA. The High Valley AVA was 

established by T.D. TTB–30 on July 1, 

2005 (70 FR 37998). The High Valley 

AVA is located to the west and 

southwest of the proposed AVA and 

shares a very small portion of its eastern 

boundary with the southeastern portion 

of the proposed AVA. Between the 

northern boundary of the High Valley 

AVA and the southwestern boundary of 

the proposed AVA is a small strip of 

land. In order to eliminate this ‘‘no 

man’s land’’ between the established 

and proposed AVAs, the petition 

proposed moving the northern boundary 

of the High Valley AVA northward so 

that it is concurrent with the 

southwestern boundary of the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA. The 

proposal would increase the size of the 

High Valley AVA by 1,542 acres. The 

petition claims that the region between 

the established AVA and the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA has 

characteristics that are similar to those 

of the established High Valley AVA, 

namely soils and topography. 

T.D. TTB–30 states that the primary 

soils of the High Valley AVA include 

Maymen, Hopland, and Mayacama 

series soils, which are primarily gravelly 

loams and gravelly sandy clay loams. 

Also present within the High Valley 

AVA are soils of the Konocti, 

Hambright, Benridge, and Sodabay 

series. The petition to establish the High 

Valley AVA states that the mineral 

serpentine is not found within the High 

Valley AVA. The petition to expand the 

High Valley AVA notes that many of the 

same soils are also found within the 

proposed expansion area, including 

Benridge-Konocti association, BenridgeSodabay loams, Maymen-Etsel-Snook 

complex, Maymen-Hopland-Etsel 

association, and Maymen-HoplandMayacama soils. Furthermore, 

serpentine is not found within the 

proposed expansion area. The High 

Valley AVA expansion petition 

included a map (Exhibit 10) showing 

the soil units of the proposed expansion 

area and the High Valley AVA to 

support these claims. The expansion 

petition also notes that the Cache 

Formation, which is the geologic parent 

feature of the soils within the 

neighboring proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County AVA, is not present within the 

proposed High Valley AVA expansion 

area, nor is it present within the High 

Valley AVA. TTB notes that, although 

the petition did not characterize soils as 

a distinguishing feature of the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA, the soils 

in the proposed High Valley AVA 

expansion area are more similar to those 

of the High Valley AVA than to the soils 

of the neighboring proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA.20

The proposed High Valley AVA 

expansion petition also states that the 

topography of the proposed expansion 

area is similar to that of the High Valley 

AVA. T.D. TTB–30 describes the High 

Valley AVA as having elevations of 

1,700 to 1,800 feet along its valley floor 

and ridges that rise steeply above the 

valley floor. The elevations of these 

ridge tops along the southern face of 

High Valley Ridge range from 1,800 to 

3,400 feet. The proposed expansion area 

contains the northern flanks of the High 

Valley Ridge. Elevations in the proposed 

expansion area range from a low of 

1,720 feet along the adjacent boundary 

of the proposed Long Valley-Lake 

County AVA to over 2,000 feet where 

the proposed expansion area joins the 

High Valley AVA boundary along High 

Valley Ridge. Therefore, the elevations 

within the proposed expansion area are 

within the range of elevations found 

within the High Valley AVA. 

Currently, the High Valley AVA 

boundary in the vicinity of the proposed 

expansion area follows the 2,000-foot 

elevation contour along the ridgeline of 

High Valley Ridge. It also follows a 

straight line drawn between the 2,000- 

foot elevation contour and the boundary 

of the Mendocino National Forest. The 

proposed boundary modification would 

move this portion of the High Valley 

AVA boundary north to the 1,720-foot 

elevation contour so that the 

northeastern boundary of the AVA 

would be concurrent with the 

southwestern boundary of the proposed 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA. 

TTB Determination 

TTB concludes that the petition to 

establish the 7,605-acre ‘‘Long ValleyLake County’’ AVA and to concurrently 

modify the boundaries of the existing 

High Valley and North 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 AVAs as one action. 

Accordingly, if TTB establishes the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA, then the proposed boundary 

modifications of the High Valley and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 13245 

North Coast AVAs would be approved 

concurrently. If TTB does not establish 

the proposed AVA, then the High Valley 

and North Coast AVA boundaries would 

not be modified. 

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 Long Valley-Lake 

County AVA boundary and the 

proposed boundary modifications of the 

North Coast and High Valley 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 § 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. 

If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, 

its name, ‘‘Long Valley-Lake County,’’ 

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 proposed 

regulation clarifies this point. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using the 

name ‘‘Long Valley-Lake County’’ in a 

brand name, including a trademark, or 

in another label reference as to the 

origin of the wine, would have to ensure 

that the product is eligible to use the 

AVA name as an appellation of origin if 

this proposed rule is adopted as a final 

rule. TTB is not proposing to designate 

‘‘Long Valley,’’ standing alone, as a term 

of viticultural significance because the 

term ‘‘Long Valley’’ is used to refer to 

multiple areas in the United States. 

Therefore, wine bottlers using ‘‘Long 

Valley,’’ standing alone, in a brand 

name or in another label reference on 

their wines would not be affected by the 

establishment of this proposed AVA. 

If approved, the establishment of the 

proposed Long Valley-Lake County 

AVA and the concurrent expansions of 

the North Coast AVA and the High 

Valley AVA would allow vintners to use 

the following terms as AVA appellations 

of origin if the wines meet the eligibility 

requirements for the appellation: 

(1) ‘‘Long Valley-Lake County’’ and 

‘‘North Coast’’ for wine made from 

grapes grown within the proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA; 

(2) ‘‘High Valley’’ and ‘‘North Coast’’ 

for wine made from grapes grown 

within the High Valley AVA and the 

proposed High Valley AVA expansion 

area; and 

(3) ‘‘North Coast’’ for wine made from 

grapes grown in the North Coast AVA 

and the proposed North Coast AVA 

expansion area. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

TTB invites comments from interested 

members of the public on whether TTB 

should establish the proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA and 

concurrently modify the boundaries of 

the established High Valley and North 

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 

Long Valley-Lake County AVA petition. 

In addition, given the proposed AVA’s 

location within the existing North Coast 

AVA, 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 North Coast 

AVA that the proposed Long ValleyLake County AVA should not be part of 

the established AVA. Please provide any 

available specific information in 

support of your comments. 

TTB also invites comments on the 

proposed expansion of the existing 

North Coast and High Valley AVAs. 

TTB is interested in comments on 

whether the evidence provided in the 

petition sufficiently demonstrates that 

the proposed North Coast AVA 

expansion area is similar enough to the 

North Coast AVA to be included in the 

established AVA. Additionally, TTB is 

interested in comments on whether the 

evidence provided in the petition 

sufficiently demonstrates that the 

proposed High Valley AVA expansion 

area is similar enough to the High 

Valley AVA to be included in the 

established AVA. Comments should 

address the boundaries, topography, 

soils, and any other pertinent 

information that supports or opposes 

the proposed North Coast AVA and 

High Valley AVA boundary expansions. 

Because of the potential impact of the 

establishment of the proposed Long 

Valley-Lake County AVA on wine labels 

that include the term ‘‘Long Valley-Lake 

County’’ 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– 

2022–0003 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the 

Federal e-rulemaking portal, at https:// 

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available under Notice 

No. 209 on the TTB website at https:// 

www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.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. 209 and include 

your name and mailing address. Your 

comments also must be made in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13246 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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–2022– 

0003 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. 209. You may also reach the 

relevant docket through the 

Regulations.gov search page at https://

www.regulations.gov. For more 

information about Regulations.gov and 

how to comment, click on the ‘‘FAQ’’ 

tab at the bottom of the site’s homepage. 

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 similarlysized 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: 

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 § 9.30 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(18) through (20) to read 

as follows: 

§ 9.30 North Coast. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(18) Then north-northwest in a 

straight line for approximately 7.6 miles 

to the 1,851-foot summit of Red Rocks; 

(19) Then northwest in a straight line 

for approximately 4.3 miles to the 1,696- 

foot summit of Chalk Mountain; 

(20) Then northwest in a straight line 

for approximately 6 miles to the 4,005- 

foot summit of Evans Peak; 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 9.189 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) through 

(5); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (c)(6); and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) 

through (11) as paragraphs (c)(6) 

through (c)(10). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 9.189 High Valley. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Proceed north along the western 

boundary of section 12 (also the eastern 

boundary of the Mendocino National 

Forest), T14N/R8W, to its intersection 

with the 1,720-foot elevation contour; 

then 

(4) Proceed easterly along the 

meandering 1,720-foot elevation contour 

for approximately 11.3 miles, crossing 

onto the Benmore Canyon map, to the 

intersection of the elevation contour 

with the northern fork of an unnamed 

creek in Salt Canyon known locally as 

Salt Creek in section 23, T14N/R7W; 

then 

(5) Proceed easterly (downstream) 

along Salt Creek approximately 760 feet 

to its intersection with the 1,600-foot 

elevation contour in section 23; then 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Add § 9.ll to read as follows: 

§ 9.ll Long Valley-Lake County. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Long 

Valley-Lake County’’. For purposes of 

part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Long Valley-Lake 

County’’ is a term of viticultural 

significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The three United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the Long 

Valley-Lake County viticultural area are 

titled: 

(1) Clearlake Oaks, California, 1996; 

(2) Benmore Canyon, California, 1996; 

and 

(3) Lower Lake, California, 1993. 

(c) Boundary. The Long Valley-Lake 

County viticultural area is located in 

Lake County, California. The boundary 

of the Long Valley-Lake County 

viticultural area is as described as 

follows: 

(1) The beginning point is on the 

Benmore Canyon map at the 

intersection of State Highway 20 and the 

1,600-foot elevation contour, just north 

of Sweet Hollow Creek, in section 35, 

T14N/R7W. 

(2) From the beginning point, proceed 

northerly along the meandering 1,600- 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 13247 

foot elevation contour for approximately 

4.1 miles to its intersection with the 

northern fork of an unnamed creek in 

Salt Canyon known locally as Salt Creek 

in section 23, T14N/R7W; then 

(3) Proceed westerly (upstream) along 

Salt Creek approximately 760 feet to its 

intersection with the 1,720-foot 

elevation contour in section 23, T14N/ 

R7W; then 

(4) Proceed northeasterly, then 

westerly along the meandering 1,720- 

foot elevation contour for approximately 

11.3 miles, crossing onto the Clearlake 

Oaks map, to the intersection of the 

elevation contour with the Mendocino 

National Forest boundary along the 

western boundary of section 12, T15N/ 

R8W; then 

(5) Proceed north along the 

Mendocino National Forest boundary 

approximately 896 feet to its 

intersection with the unnamed creek in 

Sulphur Canyon; then 

(6) Proceed northeast (downstream) 

along the unnamed creek approximately 

770 feet to its intersection with the 

1,400-foot elevation contour in section 

12, T14N/R8W; then 

(7) Proceed northeasterly, then 

northwesterly along the meandering 

1,400-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with the Mendocino 

National Forest boundary along the 

western boundary of section 36, T15N/ 

R8W; then 

(8) Proceed north along the western 

boundary of section 36 to its 

intersection with the northern boundary 

of section 36; then 

(9) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 36 to its 

intersection with the 1,400-foot 

elevation contour; then 

(10) Proceed southeasterly along the 

1,400-foot elevation contour, crossing 

onto the Benmore Canyon map and 

continuing easterly along the 1,400-foot 

elevation contour to its intersection 

with the southern boundary of section 

11, T14N/R7W; then 

(11) Proceed north in a straight line to 

the northern boundary of section 11; 

then 

(12) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 11, crossing Wolf 

Creek, to the intersection of the section 

boundary with the 1,320-foot elevation 

contour; then 

(13) Proceed south in a straight line to 

the 1,400-foot elevation contour in 

section 11; then 

(14) Proceed southeasterly along the 

1,400-foot elevation contour to the 

western boundary of section 12, T14N/ 

R7W; then 

(15) Proceed southeast in a straight 

line, crossing the North Fork of Cache 

Creek, to the 1,400-foot elevation 

contour in section 12 west of the 

summit of Chalk Mountain; then 

(16) Proceed southeasterly, then 

southerly along the meandering 1,400- 

foot elevation contour to its third 

intersection with the eastern boundary 

of section 13; then 

(17) Proceed west in a straight line to 

an unnamed, unimproved 4-wheel drive 

road in section 13; then 

(18) Proceed south in a straight line, 

crossing over a second unnamed, 

unimproved 4-wheel drive road in 

section 13, to the 1,240-foot elevation 

contour in section 24, T14N/R7W; then 

(19) Proceed east in a straight line to 

the 1,400-foot elevation contour in 

section 24; then 

(20) Proceed southeasterly, then 

northeasterly along the meandering 

1,400-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with an unnamed creek in 

section 19, T14N/R6W; then 

(21) Proceed southwesterly 

(downstream) along the unnamed creek 

to its intersection with the 1,200-foot 

contour in section 19; then 

(22) Proceed south in a straight line to 

the northern boundary of section 30, 

T14N/R6W; then 

(23) Proceed southeast, then east 

along the northern boundary of section 

30 to its intersection with the 1,400-foot 

elevation contour; then 

(24) Proceed south in a straight line to 

the unnamed creek in Benmore Canyon 

in section 30; then 

(25) Proceed southeast in a straight 

line to the 1,400-foot elevation contour 

in section 30; then 

(26) Proceed southeasterly along the 

1,400-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with the eastern boundary 

of section 31, T14N/R6W; then 

(27) Proceed generally south along the 

eastern boundary of section 31 and 

continuing along the eastern boundary 

of section 6, T13N/R6W, crossing onto 

the Lower Lake map, to the intersection 

of the boundary line and State Highway 

20 north of Phipps Creek; then 

(28) Proceed west in a straight line to 

the 1,200-foot elevation contour; then 

(29) Proceed northerly along the 

1,200-foot elevation contour, crossing 

onto the Benmore Canyon map, and 

continuing along the 1,200-foot 

elevation contour to its intersection 

with an unnamed trail in section 31, 

T14N/R6W; then 

(30) Proceed north in a straight line to 

State Highway 20; then 

(31) Proceed west along State 

Highway 20, returning to the beginning 

point. 

Signed: March 2, 2022. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: March 2, 2022. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2022–04999 Filed 3–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 383 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0292] 

RIN 2126–AC14 

Third Party Commercial Driver’s 

License Testers; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA is withdrawing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to allow States to permit a third party 

skills test examiner to administer the 

Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) 

skills test to applicants to whom the 

examiner has also provided skills 

training, a practice now prohibited 

under FMCSA regulations. FMCSA 

takes this action after considering the 

comments received following 

publication of the NPRM, as explained 

further below. 

DATES: The proposed rule published 

July 9, 2019, at 84 FR 32689, is 

withdrawn as of March 9, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Nikki McDavid, Chief, Commercial 

Driver’s License Division, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590–0001, (202) 366–0831, 

nikki.mcdavid@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In October 2017, as part of the 

Department’s review of existing 

regulations to evaluate their continued 

necessity and effectiveness, DOT 

published a ‘‘Notification of Regulatory 

Review’’ seeking public input on 

existing rules and other agency actions 

(82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017)). In response 

to that notification, SAGE Truck Driving 

Schools (SAGE) recommended that 

FMCSA eliminate the prohibition, set 

forth in § 383.75(a)(7), that prevents 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1