[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13238-13247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04999]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 grape-growing region as an AVA. 
Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards 
for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an 
AVA must include the following:
    <bullet> Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is 
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
    <bullet> An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of 
the proposed AVA;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 Valley-Lake 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 Valley-Lake 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 Valley-Lake 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

[[Page 13240]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ History 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Upson, 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.
    \4\ California Department of Water Resources. California's 
Ground Water Bulletin 118. California Department of Water Resources: 
1975. Updated 2004.
    \5\ The Shoreline Communities Area Plan prepared by Lake County 
Community Development Department, page 1-3.
    \6\ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Wye-Fire-in-Lake-County-Burns-Out-of-Control-165934666.html. See also Appendix 
Exhibit 8 of the petition in Docket TTB-2022-0003 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 13241]]

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 Valley-Lake 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64. In the Winkler 
climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the 
growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines climatic regions. 
One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean 
temperature is above 50 degrees F, the minimum temperature required 
for grapevine growth.
    \8\ California Groundwater Bulletin 118, Sacramento Valley 
Groundwater Basin, Long Valley Groundwater Basin 5-31, February 27, 
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The rainfall amounts were collected from July of the first 
year to June of the following year.

      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.

[[Page 13242]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The rainfall amounts were collected from July of the first 
year to June of the following year.
    \11\ The rainfall amounts were collected from January to 
December.
    \12\ McGourty, 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-Use-UC-Cooperative-Extension-December-1-2014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The 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.
    \14\ Albert 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 13243]]

to other locations in the North Coast AVA, Long Valley is a northwest-
southeast 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, multi-county 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 Valley-Lake 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ https://www.wineinstitute.org/resources/consumerfeaturedstories/article338.
    \17\ https://www.camp-california.com/rv-camping-destination/north-coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Valley-Lake 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Randi 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 13244]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ All figures and exhibits to the petition can be viewed in 
Docket TTB-2022-0003 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Benridge-Sodabay loams, Maymen-Etsel-
Snook complex, Maymen-Hopland-Etsel association, and Maymen-Hopland-
Mayacama 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Valley-Lake 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). 
If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name 
appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the 
bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. 
Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in 
a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new 
label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an 
AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 
7, 1986. See Sec.  4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 
4.39(i)(2)) for details.
    If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``Long Valley-Lake 
County,'' will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance 
under Sec.  4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The 
text of the proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, 
wine bottlers using the name ``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 Valley-Lake 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:
    <bullet> 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/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments 
submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use 
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the 
top of the page.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 13246]]

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 similarly-sized documents that may be included as 
part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings 
Division by email using the web form at https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by telephone at 202-453-1039, ext. 175, to request copies of 
comments or other materials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Executive Order 12866

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

Drafting Information

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

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment

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

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

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

    Authority:  27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

0
2. Amend Sec.  9.30 by revising paragraphs (c)(18) through (20) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  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;
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  9.189 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) through (5);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(6); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) through (11) as paragraphs (c)(6) 
through (c)(10).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  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
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec.  9.__ to read as follows:


Sec.  9.__   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-

[[Page 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