31164 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Statutory Authority 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority in sections 101, 103, 104, 109, 

110 and 4065 of ERISA and sections 

6058 and 6059 of the Code, the Form 

5500 Annual Return/Report and the 

instructions thereto are proposed to be 

amended as set forth herein. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

May, 2022. 

Ali Khawar, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor. 

Eric Slack, 

Director, Employee Plans, Tax Exempt and 

Government Entities Division, Internal 

Revenue Service. 

Gordon Hartogensis, 

Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10658 Filed 5–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2018–0008; T.D. TTB–179; 

Ref: Notice No. 177] 

RIN: 1513–AC40 

Establishment of the West Sonoma 

Coast Viticultural Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the 

approximately 141,846-acre ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast’’ viticultural area in 

Sonoma County, California. The 

viticultural area lies entirely within the 

established Sonoma Coast and North 

Coast viticultural areas and contains the 

established Fort Ross–Seaview 

viticultural area. TTB designates 

viticultural areas to allow vintners to 

better describe the origin of their wines 

and to allow consumers to better 

identify wines they may purchase. 

DATES: This final rule is effective June 

22, 2022. 

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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background on Viticultural Areas 

A. TTB Authority 

B. Definition 

C. Requirements 

II. West Sonoma Coast Petition 

A. General Characteristics 

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

III. Discussion of Comments Received and 

TTB Responses 

A. Comments on Establishment of 

Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

B. Comments on Inclusion of Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA 

IV. TTB Determination 

V. Boundary Description 

VI. Maps 

VII. Impact on Current Wine Labels 

VIII. Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

B. Executive Order 12866 

IX. Drafting Information 

I. Background on Viticultural Areas 

A. TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

provides that these regulations should, 

among other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the FAA Act 

pursuant to section 1111(d) of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The 

Secretary has delegated the functions 

and duties in the administration and 

enforcement of these provisions to the 

TTB Administrator through Treasury 

Order 120–01. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) authorizes TTB to establish 

definitive viticultural areas and regulate 

the use of their names as appellations of 

origin on wine labels and in wine 

advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth 

standards for the preparation and 

submission to TTB of petitions for the 

establishment or modification of 

American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 

lists the approved AVAs. 

B. Definition 

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

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

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region having 

distinguishing features as described in 

part 9 of the regulations and, once 

approved, a name and a delineated 

boundary codified in part 9 of the 

regulations. These designations allow 

vintners and consumers to attribute a 

given quality, reputation, or other 

characteristic of a wine made from 

grapes grown in an area to the wine’s 

geographic origin. The establishment of 

AVAs allows vintners to describe more 

accurately the origin of their wines to 

consumers and helps consumers to 

identify wines they may purchase. 

Establishment of an AVA is neither an 

approval nor an endorsement by TTB of 

the wine produced in that area. 

C. Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines 

the procedure for proposing an AVA 

and allows any interested party to 

petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 

of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) 

prescribes standards for petitions to 

establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to 

establish an AVA must include the 

following: 

• Evidence that the area within the 

proposed AVA boundary is nationally 

or locally known by the AVA name 

specified in the petition; 

• An explanation of the basis for 

defining the boundary of the proposed 

AVA; 

• A narrative description of the 

features of the proposed AVA affecting 

viticulture, such as climate, geology, 

soils, physical features, and elevation, 

that make the proposed AVA distinctive 

and distinguish it from adjacent areas 

outside the proposed AVA; 

• If the proposed AVA is to be 

established within, or overlapping, an 

existing AVA, an explanation that both 

identifies the attributes of the proposed 

AVA that are consistent with the 

existing AVA and explains how the 

proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct 

from the existing AVA and therefore 

appropriate for separate recognition; 

• The appropriate United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) 

showing the location of the proposed 

AVA, with the boundary of the 

proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; 

and 

• A detailed narrative description of 

the proposed AVA boundary based on 

USGS map markings. 

II. West Sonoma Coast Petition 

A. General Characteristics 

TTB received a petition from Patrick 

Shabram, on behalf of the West Sonoma 

Coast Vintners, proposing the 

establishment of the ‘‘West Sonoma 

Coast’’ AVA. The proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA is located in 

Sonoma County, California, and is 

entirely within the established Sonoma 

Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.116) and North 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31165 

1See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic 

Zones, University of California Cooperative 

Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986. (This 

publication notes the findings of University of 

California Extension Farm Advisors Robert Sisson 

and Paul Vossen regarding the climate zones of 

Sonoma County, California.). 

2See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture 

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2nd 

ed.1974), pages 61–64. In the Winkler climate 

classification system, annual heat accumulation 

during the growing season, measured in annual 

growing degree days (GDDs), defines climatic 

regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree 

Fahrenheit that a day’s mean temperature is above 

50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for 

grapevine growth. 

Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.30) and entirely 

contains the smaller established Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA (27 CFR 9.221). The 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

contains 141,846 acres and has 

approximately 47 commercial vineyards 

covering approximately 1,028 acres 

distributed throughout the proposed 

AVA. 

According to the petition, the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA include its 

topography, geology, and climate. The 

topography of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA is characterized by 

the steep, rugged mountains and 

ridgelines that form the Coastal Ranges. 

The summits of these coastal mountains 

can exceed 1,000 feet. The high 

elevations of the Coastal Ranges provide 

areas for vineyards that are above the 

fog layer. The ridgelines also create 

areas at lower elevations that are 

sheltered from the heaviest marine fogs, 

where viticulture may take place 

successfully within the fog line. By 

contrast, the region to the east of the 

proposed AVA, within the Russian 

River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.66), is 

generally lower and the slopes are less 

steep, particularly in the Santa Rosa 

Plain. To the south, within the Petaluma 

Gap AVA (27 CFR 9.261), the 

topography is characterized by gentle, 

rolling hills with lower elevations. 

Much of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA is underlain with 

sedimentary rocks of the Franciscan 

Complex. The Franciscan Complex is 

not easily eroded, which contributes to 

the high elevations and steep slopes 

within the proposed AVA. Soils derived 

from the Franciscan Complex are 

typically thin and have a high sand 

content, which promotes good drainage 

in vineyards. To the east and south of 

the proposed AVA, the Franciscan 

Complex is present, but the Wilson 

Grove Formation is the dominant 

geological feature. To the east of the 

proposed AVA, alluvial soils are also 

more common. 

Lastly, the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA has a climate that is more 

influenced by marine winds and fog 

than the more inland regions of Sonoma 

County. Much of the proposed AVA is 

located within the Marine zone climate 

classification, and gradually transitions 

to the Coastal Cool zone.1 Within the 

proposed AVA, daytime temperatures 

are generally cooler and nighttime 

temperatures are generally warmer than 

in the more inland regions. Growing 

degree day (GDD) 2 accumulations 

within the proposed AVA are typically 

lower than within the region to the east. 

Wind speeds within the proposed AVA 

are lower than within the region to the 

south, where lower elevations allow the 

coastal winds to enter relatively 

unhindered. According to the petition, 

higher wind speeds can slow 

photosynthesis, thereby slowing fruit 

development and maturation. The 

petition also states that the climate of 

the proposed AVA is suitable for 

growing cooler climate varietals of 

grapes such as Pinot Noir and 

Chardonnay. 

TTB notes that the petition did not 

provide information on the features of 

the region to the north of the proposed 

AVA, within Mendocino County. 

However, the petition states that the 

proposed name ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ is 

not used to describe any region outside 

of Sonoma County. Therefore, even if 

the region to the north has features 

similar to those of the proposed AVA, 

the proposed AVA could not extend 

into Mendocino County because 

§ 9.12(a)(1) of the TTB regulations 

requires the proposed name to apply to 

the entire region included in the 

proposed AVA. 

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

TTB published Notice No. 177 in the 

Federal Register on December 6, 2018 

(83 FR 62750), proposing to establish 

the West Sonoma Coast AVA. In that 

document, TTB summarized the 

evidence from the petition regarding the 

name, boundary, and distinguishing 

features for the proposed AVA. The 

proposal also compared the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

AVA to the surrounding areas, 

including the established Sonoma Coast, 

North Coast and Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVAs. For a detailed description of the 

evidence relating to the name, 

boundary, and distinguishing features of 

the proposed AVA, and for a detailed 

comparison of the distinguishing 

features of the proposed AVA to the 

surrounding areas, see Notice No. 177. 

In Notice No. 177, TTB solicited 

comments on the accuracy of the name, 

boundary, and other required 

information submitted in support of the 

petition. In addition, given the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA’s location 

within the Sonoma Coast and North 

Coast AVAs, TTB solicited comments 

on whether the evidence submitted in 

the petition regarding the distinguishing 

features of the proposed AVA 

sufficiently differentiates it from the two 

larger established AVAs. TTB requested 

comments on whether the geographic 

features of the proposed AVA are so 

distinguishable from the Sonoma Coast 

and North Coast AVAs that the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

should no longer be part of the 

established AVAs. Finally, TTB 

requested comments on whether the 

evidence included in the petition 

regarding the distinguishing features of 

the proposed AVA sufficiently 

differentiates it from the smaller 

established Fort Ross–Seaview AVA, 

and if the geographic features of the 

proposed AVA are so distinguishable 

that the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA should 

not be a part of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA. 

The comment period for Notice No. 

177 was originally scheduled to close on 

February 4, 2019. However, TTB 

received two comments requesting an 

extension of the comment period and 

subsequently published Notice No. 

177A on February 12, 2019 (84 FR 

3353), which reopened the comment 

period until April 15, 2019. 

III. Discussion of Comments Received 

and TTB Responses 

In response to Notice No. 177, TTB 

received a total of 72 comments. 

However, one comment was a duplicate 

of a previously submitted comment, and 

one comment was replaced by a later 

comment from the same submitter 

before the original comment was posted. 

Therefore, a total of 70 comments were 

posted for public viewing within 

Regulations.gov docket number TTB– 

2018–0008 (see https://

www.regulations.gov). Commenters 

included local vineyard and winery 

owners and employees, wine writers 

and educators, sommeliers, and 

consumers. 

Of the 70 comments that TTB posted 

to the docket, 67 express either support 

for or opposition to the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA, while two 

comments request an extension of the 

comment period (comments 27 and 28), 

and one comment withdraws but does 

not replace a previously submitted and 

posted comment (comment 1, 

withdrawn by comment 42). Of the 67 

comments that express a specific 

opinion on the proposal, 49 support the 

proposed AVA, 1 comment supports the 

proposed AVA and requests an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31166 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

3McIntyre, Dave. ‘‘Why American wine labels 

aren’t as specific as they could be,’’ Washington 

Post (December 31, 2016). 4McCoy, Elin. ‘‘California’s Edgiest Riskiest Wine 

Region Is About to Get a New Name: Five wines to 

know from West Sonoma Coast, as it’ll soon be 

known,’’ Bloomberg Wine (August 31, 2018). 5Boone, Virginia. ‘‘Wines Way Out West.’’ Press 

Democrat (July 21, 2014). 6See Exhibit A–10 to comment 51 in docket 

TTB–2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

7Boone, Virginie. ‘‘Way Out on the West Sonoma 

Coast,’’ Wine Enthusiast Magazine (June 13, 2016). 

8http://www.lazybearsf.com/site/wp-content/ 

uploads/2019/01/20190129-Beverage-Menu.pdf, 

pages 35, 67, and 70. 

expansion of the boundary to include 

the commenter’s vineyard (comment 

55), 1 comment supports the 

establishment of the proposed AVA but 

opposes the choice of name (comment 

62), and 14 oppose the establishment of 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

Additionally, the petitioner submitted 

two comments in defense of his analysis 

of the proposed AVA (comments 54 and 

67), including one (comment 54) which 

withdrew and replaced his previously 

submitted and posted comment 

(comment 36). 

A. Comments on Establishment of 

Proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

1. Proposed AVA Name 

i. Opposing Comments 

TTB received two comments that 

oppose the proposed ‘‘West Sonoma 

Coast’’ name. One of these comments 

(comment 62) opposes the proposed 

name, although the commenter does 

support the establishment of an AVA 

limited to the extreme coastal regions of 

the established Sonoma Coast AVA. The 

commenter, who is a self-identified 

grape grower and winemaker in the 

established Sonoma Coast AVA, 

believes that the name ‘‘West Sonoma 

Coast’’ begs the question where is the 

‘‘East Sonoma Coast?’’ The commenter 

is also concerned that the proposed 

name ‘‘will risk creating an inland or 

east version of the Sonoma Coast, which 

could be read by some as being less 

than’’ the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA. The commenter supports the 

establishment of the AVA if it were 

proposed with another name; however, 

he did not suggest an alternative name 

for the proposed AVA. 

The second comment opposing the 

proposed ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ name 

was submitted jointly by Lester 

Schwartz, owner of Fort Ross Vineyards, 

and Daniel Schoenfeld, owner of Wild 

Hog Vineyard (comment 51). Both 

vineyards are within the proposed AVA 

and also within the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA. The commenters assert that the 

name evidence provided by the 

petitioner does not meet the 

requirements of § 9.12(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of 

the TTB regulations. The commenters 

provide two articles which they believe 

demonstrate that the proposed AVA is 

not locally or nationally known as 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ The first article 

quotes the director of sales and 

marketing of Peay Vineyards, saying 

that the West Sonoma Coast Vintners’ 

first petition to establish an AVA was 

rejected by TTB ‘‘because there was no 

historical reference to a West Sonoma 

Coast,’’ and that the ‘‘proposed moniker 

seems nonsensical at first blush’’ 

because there is no ‘‘East Sonoma 

Coast.’’ 3 The second article is titled 

‘‘California’s Edgiest, Riskiest Wine 

Region Is About to Get a New Name: 

Five wines to know from West Sonoma 

Coast, as it’ll soon be known.’’ 4 The 

commenters assert that the phrases ‘‘get 

a new name’’ and ‘‘as it’ll soon be 

known’’ in the title of the article 

suggests that the region of the proposed 

AVA is not currently known by the 

name ‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ 

The commenters provided examples 

of different names currently used to 

describe the region of the proposed 

AVA, including materials from the West 

Sonoma Coast Vintners’ West of the 

West Wine Festival and Vintners Farm 

Camp. These materials use the terms 

‘‘True Coast,’’ ‘‘True Sonoma Coast,’’ 

‘‘Far Sonoma Coast,’’ ‘‘Sonoma Coast 

Mountains,’’ and ‘‘Sonoma Coast 

Highlands,’’ among others when 

referring to the region of the proposed 

AVA. Another article included in the 

comment refers to the region of the 

proposed AVA as ‘‘Gold Coast’’ and 

‘‘California’s cote d’or.’’ 5 The 

commenters further claim that the name 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ does not apply to 

the entire region, as portions of the 

proposed AVA are known by other 

names such as ‘‘Annapolis,’’ 

‘‘Freestone,’’ ‘‘Occidental,’’ and ‘‘Fort 

Ross.’’ The commenters assert that the 

use of these other names to describe the 

region of the proposed AVA shows that 

the proposed name is not locally or 

nationally recognized, nor does it apply 

to the entire proposed AVA. 

Comment 51 also questions the 

petition’s use of the West Sonoma 

County Union High School District as 

evidence to support the proposed AVA 

name. The commenters claim that the 

petition incorrectly portrays the school 

district as the only school district 

serving the proposed AVA when in fact 

there are multiple school districts. The 

commenters included a map of the 

school districts serving the proposed 

AVA and surrounding regions and note 

that the northern portion of the 

proposed AVA is not within the school 

district, and 60 percent of the school 

district is located outside the proposed 

AVA.6

Finally, the commenters claim that 

the name evidence provided by the 

petitioner is not independent of the 

petitioner, as required by TTB 

regulations. The commenters assert that 

the proposed name is a ‘‘recent fiction 

of the petitioner’s own making.’’ As 

evidence, the commenters point to a 

statement from page 5 of the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA petition that 

says that the name ‘‘offers the best 

descriptive delineator given the 

limitations of being able to use the most 

appropriate identifier’’ for the proposed 

AVA. 

ii. Supporting Comments 

Only one comment expressly supports 

the use of the proposed name ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast.’’ The petitioner, Patrick 

Shabram, submitted a comment 

(comment 67) which included 

additional name evidence and was 

submitted in response to comment 51. 

The petitioner submitted an article 

entitled ‘‘Way Out on the West Sonoma 

Coast,’’ which describes places to visit 

in the towns of Annapolis, Occidental, 

Freestone, and Sebastopol.7 Another 

item submitted was a wine list from the 

Lazy Bear Restaurant 8 in San Francisco 

that uses the ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ 

moniker to describe several wines from 

the region of the proposed AVA. For 

example, the Alma Fria Don ̃ a Margarita 

Vineyard 2014 pinot noir is listed as 

‘‘Freestone, West Sonoma Coast, 

California,’’ and the 2014 Alma Fria 

Holterman Vineyard pinot noir is 

designated ‘‘Annapolis, 2014, West 

Sonoma Coast, California.’’ 

iii. TTB Response 

After careful review of the comments 

and the name evidence provided in the 

petition, TTB has determined that there 

is sufficient evidence to support the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

name. The petition provided ample 

evidence that the term ‘‘West Sonoma’’ 

is used to describe the entire western 

portion of Sonoma County, where the 

proposed AVA is located. TTB notes 

that the use of a directional term such 

as ‘‘West’’ in an AVA name does not 

require that there be a separate region 

known by the opposite direction. TTB 

has approved several such AVAs, 

including the North Yuba (27 CFR 

9.106), North Fork of Long Island (27 

CFR 9.113), and West Elks (27 CFR 

9.172) AVAs. 

TTB believes that the West Sonoma 

County Union High School District 

name is an acceptable piece of evidence 

to demonstrate that the proposed AVA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31167 

9The name evidence is included in Exhibit J to 

the petition in Docket TTB–2018–0008 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

10McInerney, Jay. ‘‘West Sonoma Coast Wines are 

on the Rise,’’ The Wall Street Journal (July 18, 

2013). 

11Brown, Elaine Chukan. ‘‘Sonoma’s Far Coast: A 

haven for pinot noir,’’ Wines and Spirits (August 

31, 2015). 

is in a region known as ‘‘West Sonoma’’ 

or ‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ The petition 

claimed that ‘‘much of the proposed 

AVA is within’’ the school district. The 

school district map included in 

comment 51 does not disprove this 

claim. TTB notes that the school district 

name was not the only piece of name 

evidence for the proposed AVA. The 

petition also included magazine and 

newspaper articles, an excerpt from a 

book, and a real estate listing that all 

referred to the region of the proposed 

AVA as ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ or ‘‘West 

Sonoma.’’ 9

TTB does not agree with the assertion 

in comment 51 that the Washington Post 

and Bloomberg Wine articles 

demonstrate that the proposed name 

does not currently apply to the region. 

While the Washington Post article notes 

the proposed ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ 

name ‘‘seems nonsensical’’ and that 

there is a lack of historical evidence for 

this name, TTB does not believe these 

statements demonstrate the region is not 

known as the ‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ 

Under TTB regulations, a petitioner 

does not need to submit historical name 

evidence in support of a proposed AVA 

name, but only needs to submit 

evidence that the proposed AVA name 

is ‘‘currently and directly associated’’ 

with the area ‘‘in which viticulture 

exists’’ (see § 9.12(a)(1)). TTB finds that 

the petitioner for this rulemaking meets 

this requirement, and has determined 

that both the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA petition and comment 67, 

which was submitted by the petitioner, 

included multiple examples of the name 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ or ‘‘West 

Sonoma’’ being used currently to 

describe the region of the proposed 

AVA. 

Also, TTB does not believe the 

Bloomberg Wine article’s statement that 

the region of the proposed AVA will 

‘‘soon be known’’ by a ‘‘new name’’ is 

evidence that the region is not known 

by the West Sonoma Coast name. TTB 

finds this statement is referring to the 

fact that a new AVA with the name 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ may soon be 

established. TTB finds the article refers 

to the region of the proposed AVA in 

the present tense as ‘‘West Sonoma 

Coast,’’ noting, ‘‘The dramatic, 51-milelong sliver of land next to the ocean is 

known as the West Sonoma Coast 

* * *.’’ 

TTB also disagrees with the claim in 

comment 51 that, because the region of 

the proposed AVA is known by many 

different names, it cannot be designated 

as ‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ TTB 

regulations do not preclude the region 

of a proposed AVA from being known 

by more than one name. In fact, the 

towns of Annapolis, Freestone, and 

Occidental are already within the 

established Sonoma Coast and North 

Coast AVAs, and the existence of these 

communities did not affect the ability of 

TTB to recognize the names ‘‘Sonoma 

Coast’’ and ‘‘North Coast’’ for those 

AVAs. Additionally, none of the 

comments provided evidence that any 

of the other names used to describe the 

region would be a more appropriate 

choice. Therefore, TTB has determined 

that the petition provided sufficient 

evidence to support the proposed name 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ 

Additionally, TTB believes that the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

petition provided sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that the towns of 

Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental 

are considered part of a larger region 

known as West Sonoma Coast. For 

example, Exhibit J to the petition 

included an article entitled ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast Wines are on the Rise’’ 10

which mentions Summa Vineyards in 

Occidental, while another article about 

the ‘‘west (sic) Sonoma Coast’’ mentions 

that Peay Vineyards ‘‘makes three estate 

pinots from their vineyard in 

Annapolis.’’ 11 Furthermore, in 

comment 67, the petitioner provided 

additional name evidence linking the 

proposed ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ name to 

the towns of Annapolis, Occidental, and 

Freestone. 

Finally, TTB disagrees with the 

assertion in comment 51 that the 

petition did not include name evidence 

that is independent of the petitioner, as 

required by § 9.12(a)(1)(ii). The name 

evidence included in the petition shows 

that the name has been recognized and 

used by others to describe the region of 

the proposed AVA. For example, the 

real estate ad for ‘‘West Sonoma Coast 

Ranch Land’’ that was included in the 

petition provides evidence that the 

name ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ is currently 

used by people outside the wine 

industry. TTB acknowledges that many 

of the articles cited as name evidence in 

the petition are references to the wine 

industry. However, they include articles 

from newspapers and journals not 

exclusively dedicated to wine, such as 

the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, 

suggesting that the name has been 

accepted and used by people outside the 

wine industry. 

2. General Distinguishing Features 

i. Opposing Comments 

Nine of the comments opposing the 

establishment of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA raise objection to 

the proposal based on a lack of 

distinguishing features. These opposing 

comments generally claim that the 

features of the proposed AVA are too 

diverse to be combined into a larger, 

generalized AVA, but do not provide 

evidence to support these claims. 

One of the comments (comment 52) 

asserts that the distinguishing features 

data in the petition did not meet TTB’s 

regulatory requirements because the 

petition did not compare the proposed 

AVA to all of the seven AVAs that 

overlap or are adjacent to the proposed 

AVA, including the Northern Sonoma 

(27 CFR 9.70), Petaluma Gap, Russian 

River Valley, Green Valley of Russian 

River Valley (27 CFR 9.57), Fort Ross– 

Seaview, Sonoma Coast, and North 

Coast AVAs. The comment states that 

the comparisons that were included in 

the petition are not sufficiently 

supported by facts, but the comment did 

not provide any evidence to refute the 

data in the petition. 

Comment 51 also asserts that the 

petition failed to meet the requirements 

of § 9.12(a)(2) of the TTB regulations 

because it does not explain with 

specificity how the commonalities and 

similarities within the proposed AVA 

are different from those in the adjacent 

areas outside the proposed AVA. The 

comment states that the petition does 

not provide comparisons to the 

neighboring Northern Sonoma, Green 

Valley of the Russian River Valley, and 

Petaluma Gap AVAs, and that the 

petition’s comparison to the North Coast 

AVA is insufficient. The comment also 

claims that the proposed West Sonoma 

AVA consists of four regions with ‘‘too 

diverse a range of geographic and 

climatic features to be considered a 

unitary AVA.’’ These four regions are 

identified as the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA and the Annapolis, Freestone, and 

Occidental regions. The comment 

asserts that an attempt to establish a 

Freestone–Occidental AVA in 2008, as 

well as TTB’s rejection of a request to 

include the Annapolis region in the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA in 2011, illustrate 

that the two regions are too different to 

be included in a single AVA. 

ii. Supporting Comments 

Five of the supporting comments 

express general agreement that the 

features of the proposed West Sonoma 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31168 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

12See 48 FR 42973, 42976, September 21, 1983. 

13See Exhibit B–1 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Coast AVA are distinctive from those of 

the surrounding regions. These five 

comments did not focus on a particular 

feature, nor did they provide any 

additional evidence. 

iii. TTB Response 

After careful review of the comments 

and the petition, TTB has determined 

that the information in the petition 

sufficiently demonstrates that the 

features of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA generally distinguish it from 

the surrounding regions, including 

neighboring and overlapping 

established AVAs. The TTB regulations 

at § 9.12(a)(2) require an AVA petition 

to explain how a proposed AVA’s 

distinguishing features are ‘‘different in 

the adjacent areas outside that 

boundary.’’ The AVAs adjacent to the 

eastern boundaries of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA are the Russian 

River Valley AVA and the Sonoma 

Coast AVA, which entirely overlaps 

both the proposed AVA as well as the 

Green Valley of Russian River AVA and 

most of the Russian River Valley AVA. 

The Petaluma Gap AVA is adjacent to 

the southern boundary of the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA and is also 

partially located within the Sonoma 

Coast AVA. The Green Valley of Russian 

River Valley AVA is entirely within the 

Russian River Valley AVA, and the 

Northern Sonoma AVA completely 

encompasses both the Green Valley of 

Russian River Valley AVA and the 

Russian River Valley AVA. 

TTB disagrees with the assertion in 

comments 51 and 52 that the petition 

does not include comparisons of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA’s 

distinguishing features to those of the 

surrounding AVAs. In its discussion of 

topography, the petition compares the 

proposed AVA to the established 

Russian River Valley, Green Valley of 

Russian River Valley, and Petaluma Gap 

AVAs. The climate section of the 

petition includes GDD, average monthly 

maximum temperature, and monthly 

low temperature data from the town of 

Windsor, which is within the Sonoma 

Coast, Russian River Valley, and 

Northern Sonoma AVAs. The average 

monthly maximum and minimum 

temperature graphs also include data 

from the city of Santa Rosa, which is 

partially within the Sonoma Coast, 

Northern Sonoma, and Russian River 

Valley AVAs. Wind speed data is 

provided from Windsor, Santa Rosa, and 

the town of Valley Ford, which is 

within both the Petaluma Gap AVA and 

the Sonoma Coast AVA. Finally, the 

geology section of the petition contains 

a discussion of the geology of the 

Russian River Valley and Petaluma Gap 

AVAs. Therefore, TTB has determined 

that the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA petition meets the regulatory 

requirements to provide comparison 

data from the ‘‘adjacent areas outside 

the boundary.’’ TTB notes that its 

regulations do not require that each of 

the features of the proposed AVA must 

be distinguishable from all of the 

surrounding regions. In other words, the 

feature that distinguishes a proposed 

AVA from the regions to the east and 

west does not have to be the same 

feature that distinguishes the proposed 

AVA from the north and south. 

TTB also finds that the petition 

provided a sufficient comparison of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA to 

the larger North Coast AVA that 

encompasses it. As noted in T.D. ATF– 

145, which established the North Coast 

AVA, the primary distinguishing 

features of the North Coast AVA are a 

climate that is ‘‘influenced by intrusions 

of cooler, damper coastal marine air and 

fog, by temperatures that are cooler than 

the Central Valley, and by greater 

rainfall than surrounding areas.’’ 12 The 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

petition notes that, like the North Coast 

AVA, the proposed AVA is influenced 

by maritime air. Although the petition 

does not provide any additional specific 

comparisons to the North Coast AVA, 

the petition does describe how the 

proposed AVA differs from the Sonoma 

Coast, Russian River Valley, and 

Petaluma Gap AVAs, all of which are 

also located in the North Coast AVA. 

Therefore, TTB finds that the petition 

sufficiently demonstrated that the 

proposed AVA shares a marineinfluenced climate with the North Coast 

AVA, but is also a distinct microclimate 

within the larger AVA. Also, due to its 

smaller size, the proposed AVA 

experiences a much smaller range of 

climatic variations within its proposed 

boundaries than the diverse, 

multicounty North Coast AVA. 

TTB does not believe that the 

information included in comment 51 

demonstrates that the characteristics of 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

are too diverse to be considered ‘‘a 

unitary AVA.’’ The comment includes 

an elevation map (Exhibit A–2) and an 

elevation statistics table (Exhibit A–3), 

both of which do show a variety of 

elevations within the proposed AVA. 

However, neither the map nor the table 

provide sufficient evidence to refute the 

petition’s claims that the proposed 

AVA’s elevations are generally higher 

than elevations in the surrounding 

regions, particularly in the Petaluma 

Gap AVA and the Santa Rosa Plain 

region of the Russian River Valley AVA. 

For example, Exhibit A–3 notes 

elevations of acreage outside the 

proposed AVA that exist at less than 

400 feet. However, this exhibit also 

shows that within the four regions 

comprising the proposed AVA, no 

region has an average vineyard elevation 

of below 500 feet. Additionally, the 

petition shows the proposed AVA 

contains the mountainous terrain of the 

Coastal Ranges, which contain summits 

which exceed 1000 feet, a contrast to the 

Santa Rosa Plain to the east of the 

proposed AVA, which contains slopes 

of less than 5 percent. 

Comment 51 includes a letter from 

meteorologist Roland Clark that also 

claims, ‘‘While the petition seeks to 

simply distinguish the western half [of 

the established Sonoma Coast AVA] 

from the eastern half, it does not address 

the differences that have been proven to 

exist between Annapolis, Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA, Occidental and 

Freestone,’’ which are all communities 

within the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA.13 TTB regulations allow for an 

AVA to contain regions with differences 

in distinguishing features. However, 

§ 9.12(a)(3) of the TTB regulations 

requires that the regions within an AVA 

must still share ‘‘common or similar 

features.’’ TTB believes the various 

regions of the proposed AVA share 

climatic features, topography, and 

geology that are more similar to each 

other than to the regions outside the 

proposed AVA. TTB also notes that the 

entire proposed AVA is already located 

within the established Sonoma Coast 

and North Coast AVAs, further 

indicating that the various regions 

within the proposed AVA share at least 

some similar features. 

TTB does not agree with the assertion 

in comment 51 that the exclusion of the 

Annapolis region from the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA indicates that the two 

regions are too dissimilar to now be 

included in a single AVA. Although the 

Annapolis region does not share enough 

of the characteristics of the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA, particularly the name 

evidence, to be included with that AVA, 

the two regions share enough 

similarities to be included in a larger, 

overlapping AVA, such as the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA. As noted 

previously, both the Annapolis region 

and the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA are 

already located within the Sonoma 

Coast and North Coast AVAs, indicating 

that TTB found them to share at least 

some broad characteristics of the two 

larger AVAs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31169 

14See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic 

Zones, University of California Cooperative 

Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986. 

15The statement was taken from a comment 

submitted to TTB in 2010 in response to Notice No. 

34, which proposed the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA. 

The comment was submitted by Patrick Shabram, 

the current petitioner. See 70 FR 11174, March 8, 

2005. 

16See Exhibit A–6 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

17See Exhibit D–8 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

18See Exhibit B–2 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

19See Exhibit A–4 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 20See Exhibit A–5 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 21See Exhibit B–1 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Last, in contrast to the assertion in 

comment 51, TTB does not believe that 

submission of a petition to establish a 

Freestone–Occidental AVA in 2008 

indicates that the Freestone–Occidental 

region is too distinct from the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA and the Annapolis 

region to be included with those regions 

in a larger AVA such as the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA. The 

submission of a petition to establish an 

AVA within another AVA does not 

mean that the smaller region cannot 

have features that are distinct enough to 

warrant recognition as an AVA and still 

share some of the broader characteristics 

of the encompassing AVA. For example, 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA is currently 

within the larger, established North 

Coast and Sonoma Coast AVAs, along 

with the Freestone–Occidental and 

Annapolis regions. Even though the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA is distinguishable 

from the Freestone–Occidental and 

Annapolis regions, they all still share 

marine-influenced climates 

characteristic of the two larger coastal 

AVAs. Therefore, TTB believes that the 

submission of a petition to recognize the 

Freestone–Occidental region as an AVA 

does not, by itself, serve as evidence 

that the region is too distinct to be 

included in a larger AVA with the 

Annapolis region and Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA. 

3. Climate 

i. Opposing Comments 

Six comments, comments 41, 43, 47, 

49, 50, and 51, oppose including the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA within the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

These commenters allege the climate of 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA is distinct 

from other regions to be included in the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

However, comment 51 was the only 

opposing comment that addressed the 

petition’s climate evidence and 

provided data to support its claims. The 

comment states that the petition is 

incorrect in asserting that the proposed 

AVA is largely within the Marine 

climate zone, as developed by Robert 

Sisson and Paul Vossen.14 The comment 

states that the vineyards in the 

Annapolis region of the proposed AVA 

are within the Coastal Cool zone, not the 

Marine zone, and that although some 

vineyards within the Occidental and 

Freestone regions are within the Marine 

zone, others are in the Costal Cool zone. 

The comment claims that the Sisson 

model of climate zones is ‘‘unsupportive 

of [the petitioner’s] thesis for 

distinguishing the proposed AVA,’’ 

because the model claims that the 

Marine zone is too cold for grape 

growing. 

Comment 51 also disagrees with the 

petition’s description of fog intrusion 

within the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA and the surrounding regions, 

particularly the petition’s claim that 

ridgelines form pockets protected from 

the heaviest marine fog in the Freestone, 

Annapolis, and Occidental regions of 

the proposed AVA. The comment states 

that the Annapolis region has lowelevation gaps that allow for the 

penetration of fog, and that there are no 

high coastal ridges to form protected 

areas around Freestone. As evidence, 

the comment includes a statement from 

the winemaker of Peay Vineyards.15 In 

the statement, the winemaker says that 

her Annapolis-area vineyard is below 

the inversion layer, and cool ocean fog 

persists throughout the day. Comment 

51 also includes a Sonoma County fog 

map created from satellite imagery from 

August 24, 2018, that shows fog 

intruding into much of the county, 

including the region east of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA.16

The fog, however, appears to intrude 

only partially into the portion of the 

proposed AVA that contains the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA. 

Comment 51 also disputes the 

petition’s claims that the proposed AVA 

generally has warmer nocturnal 

temperatures than the regions to the 

east. The comment includes a printout 

from a graph published by the West 

Sonoma Coast Vintners that shows the 

average diurnal temperature shift in the 

proposed AVA, the Green Valley of 

Russian River AVA, and the Russian 

River Valley AVA from veraison 

through harvest.17 According to the 

comment, the graph shows that the 

Occidental region of the proposed AVA 

has substantially lower nocturnal 

temperatures than the Russian River 

Valley AVA. 

Additionally, comment 51 included a 

letter dated February 20, 2019, from 

Ronald Clark, a retired naval 

meteorologist and president of Weather 

Mission, Inc.18 The letter responds to 

additional maximum and minimum 

temperature data and temperature 

variation calculations submitted by the 

petitioner in comment 54. In the letter, 

Mr. Clark states his belief that diurnal 

temperature difference is not what 

‘‘makes the difference in plant growth.’’ 

Instead, Mr. Clark suggests that GDDs, 

which take into consideration the total 

number of hours a day with 

temperatures above 50 degrees F, are 

more important in predicting plant 

growth, Mr. Clark concludes by stating 

that neither the climate data in 

comment 54 nor the climate data 

provided in the original petition provide 

sufficient evidence to establish the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

Comment 51 disagrees with the 

petition’s claim that wind speeds within 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

are lower than within the regions to the 

south and east. As evidence, the 

comment provided a map of average 

annual wind speeds in the western 

portion of Sonoma County.19 The map 

indicates that winds of up to 15.7 miles 

per hour occur within the proposed 

AVA and the region to the south, while 

wind speeds generally do not exceed 

14.4 miles per hour in the region to the 

east. 

Comment 51 further claims that the 

climate data in the petition is 

incomplete because it does not provide 

information on rainfall amounts, which 

the comment claims is required by 

§ 9.12(a)(3)(1) of the TTB regulations. 

The comment includes a map showing 

the annual average precipitation 

amounts for the proposed AVA and 

surrounding regions from 1981 to 

2010.20 The comment asserts that the 

average annual precipitation amounts in 

the four regions of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA are too diverse to be 

included in a single AVA, and that the 

differences between the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA and the Annapolis, 

Occidental, and Freestone regions are 

particularly significant. 

Last, comment 51 questions the 

methodology used by the petitioner to 

calculate the GDDs of the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA and the 

surrounding regions. The comment 

included a second letter from Roland 

Clark, dated January 11, 2019.21 The 

letter argues that even though the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

petition ‘‘seeks to distinguish the 

western half [of the established Sonoma 

Coast AVA] from the eastern, it still 

does not address differences which have 

been proven to exist between 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31170 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

22On days when the actual maximum 

temperature exceeds the cap temperature, the cap 

temperature is used in place of the maximum 

temperature when calculating GDDs. 

23Winkler, A.J., et al. General Viticulture, 

University of California Press, 1962, 1974. 

Annapolis, Fort Ross–Seaview, 

Occidental and Freestone,’’ which are 

all regions within the proposed AVA. 

Mr. Clark claims that the most basic 

method of calculating GDDs is ‘‘to 

average the daily low and the daily high 

temperature, then subtract the 

determined base temperature and assign 

0 for anything less than 0. So for each 

day, if the average temperature does not 

exceed the base temperature, no GDD 

accumulation is added * * *.’’ 

According to the letter, a base 

temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit (F) 

is typically used when calculating GDDs 

for grapes, and a cap temperature may 

be applied, typically 85 degrees F.22

Graph 1 on page 12 of the petition uses 

70 degrees F as a base temperature and 

90 degrees F as the cap. Mr. Clark 

claims he ran a ‘‘simple average GDD 

model’’ with 2017 and 2018 data from 

five locations in the proposed AVA and 

two locations within the Russian River 

Valley AVA. He then ran the same 

model on the same data using a base 

temperature of 50 degrees F and a cap 

of 85 degrees F. Both computations 

resulted in higher GDD accumulations 

for the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA than for 

any other the other locations. The 

results, he claims, cast doubt on the data 

in Graph 1 of the petition. 

Mr. Clark’s letter also questioned 

Table 3 on page 16 of the petition, 

noting that the methodology for 

calculating the information in Table 3 is 

not described and the data is 

incomplete. In particular, only one year 

of data is available from the Red Car 

Vineyard and KJ Seascape weather 

stations within the proposed AVA. The 

letter states that Tables 4 and 5 on pages 

16 and 17 of the petition use a single 

location to represent the entirety of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

Because the methodology of calculating 

the GDDs is not known and the data is 

incomplete, the letter concludes that the 

petition’s conclusion of cooler 

temperatures existing within the 

proposed AVA than in the surrounding 

regions cannot be deemed accurate. 

ii. Supporting Comments 

Thirty-four comments specifically 

expressed support for the climate 

evidence in the petition. These 

commenters generally state that the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA’s 

climate is more affected by the marine 

breezes and fog than the regions farther 

inland, resulting in cooler daytime 

temperatures, warmer nighttime 

temperatures, and later harvest dates. 

Only 2 of these 32 comments provided 

objective data, rather than anecdotal 

evidence, to support their claims. Both 

of these comments were submitted by 

the petitioner (comments 54 and 67). 

In his first comment (comment 54), 

the petitioner submitted data relating to 

the 2018 average maximum and 

minimum temperatures and average 

temperature variation for six locations 

within the proposed AVA, including the 

Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental 

regions and the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA, 

and four locations in the neighboring 

Russian River Valley AVA. The data 

shows that in 2018, the locations within 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

had lower average maximum 

temperatures and higher minimum 

temperatures than the locations in the 

Russian River Valley AVA. The average 

diurnal temperature variations for the 

proposed AVA locations were also 

smaller than the variations for the 

Russian River Valley AVA. This data 

supports the petitioner’s original 

climate claims relating to maximum 

daytime and minimum nighttime 

temperatures within the proposed AVA 

and the surrounding regions. 

In comment 67, the petitioner clarifies 

his characterization of the climatic 

zones created by Robert Sisson and Paul 

Vossen, which was questioned in 

comment 51. The petitioner states that 

the climatic zones are a ‘‘brilliant’’ 

creation, but that since their creation, 

‘‘the kind of weather data available, trial 

and error with different sites, 

population densities, and even the 

climate have all changed.’’ He states that 

it is correct to claim that ‘‘sections of the 

West Sonoma Coast AVA with active 

viticulture are within the Marine 

climate type,’’ which was originally 

created to define regions too cold for 

successful viticulture. He agrees with 

comment 51 that portions of the 

proposed AVA are within the Coastal 

Cool zone, including much of the Fort 

Ross-Seaview AVA and portions of the 

Occidental and Freestone regions. He 

states that the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA is based on ‘‘the coolest 

parts of the [established] Sonoma Coast 

AVA, and that would include the cooler 

sections of the Coastal Cool climate type 

and the transitional Marine zone.’’ He 

concludes by suggesting that it would be 

more accurate to say that vineyards in 

the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and 

Annapolis region of the proposed AVA 

straddle the ‘‘edge’’ between the Coastal 

Cool and Marine zones, while vineyards 

‘‘near’’ Occidental and Freestone are 

within the Marine zone. 

In comment 67, the petitioner also 

addresses the issue of fog intrusion that 

was raised in comment 51. He states 

that the comment inaccurately 

interpreted the summary in Notice No. 

34 of the statement from the winemaker 

at Peay Vineyards to mean that the Peay 

Vineyards near Annapolis are below the 

inversion layer, not above it. The 

petitioner states that within the 

proposed AVA, the regions below the 

fog are generally below 400 feet. 

Vineyards in the Annapolis region, 

including the Peay Vineyards, are 

planted at elevations between 550 and 

800 feet, putting them within the fog 

and not below it. He states that this 

distinction is important because ‘‘solar 

radiation has less fog to penetrate to 

reach vines’’ within the fog layer, as 

opposed to vines planted below the fog. 

Sitting below the fog in the Annapolis 

region, the petitioner concludes, ‘‘would 

likely mean grapes that do not 

consistently mature.’’ 

The petitioner also responds to 

comment 51’s criticism of the GDD data 

and methodology used in the petition. 

He states that the data from Red Car 

Estate Vineyard used in Graph 1 of the 

petition is not from a single year, as 

claimed in comment 51, but is from the 

years stated in the heading of the graph. 

He clarifies that Graph 1 of the petition 

was provided by the West Sonoma Coast 

Vintners, as noted in the petition, and 

that he did not describe the 

methodology used to calculate the GDDs 

in that graph because he ‘‘could not 

definitively verify the methodology’’ the 

association used. The petitioner says 

that he did receive some partial data 

sets to test the GDD calculations, but he 

was unable to do a complete test 

because the totals for Annapolis, 

Occidental, and Freestone were in 

aggregate. He also states that according 

to the background data, he deduced that 

GDD was calculated using April 1 to 

October 31 heat accumulations for 

temperatures above 50 degrees F, with 

no cap temperature. The petitioner 

states that this method is commonly 

used in the wine industry and is the 

basis for A.J. Winkler’s and M.A. 

Amerine’s wine regions, often referred 

to as the Winkler Index or Winkler 

Scale,23 and is the method he used for 

the other GDD calculations in the 

petition. 

Last, the petitioner addresses the 

completeness of his GDD data in the 

other tables and graphs in the petition, 

as questioned in comment 51. The 

petitioner acknowledges that he lacked 

complete data from every station and 

every year listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the 

petition, but that he clearly stated as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31171 

24See Exhibit H of the petition in docket TTB– 

2018–2008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

25https://www.usgs.gov/centers/california-waterscience-center/science/santa-rosa-plain. 

such in his petition. He also noted that 

weather station data is becoming 

increasingly more available, ‘‘but 

because data are available today doesn’t 

mean that they were available at the 

time of the West Sonoma Coast study.’’ 

He also says that he checked the Fort 

Ross-Seaview AVA, Graton, and 

Sebastopol weather stations used for the 

2017 and 2018 GDD calculations in 

Exhibit B–1 of comment 51. The 

petitioner found that the data for those 

stations for the period during which the 

petition was written was unavailable or 

incomplete and, therefore, would have 

been of little use to him at the time he 

was developing the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA petition. 

The petitioner also states that he was 

not aware of the degree day modeling 

tool from Oregon State University 

mentioned in comment 51 and instead 

relied on growers to provide him with 

data or on data he gathered from the 

Western Region Climate Center, the 

California Data Exchange Center, and 

the California Irrigation Management 

Information System. He notes that, after 

learning of the degree day modeling 

tool, he attempted to test it by locating 

several stations just outside the 

proposed AVA. He particularly looked 

for data from 2010 to 2014, to be 

consistent with the years he had used in 

the petition. The petitioner claims that 

data from those years was also 

incomplete for the stations he found 

using the modeling tool. He also 

discovered that the modeling tool uses 

temperature observations and digital 

elevation models to interpolate high and 

low temperatures and precipitation. He 

asserts that when this method is used 

for single-year data sets, the results ‘‘are 

in 4KM x 4KM pixels, which isn’t very 

helpful when trying to assess climatic 

variations at the scale that assessment of 

viticulture is usually done at.’’ Instead, 

the method is best used with thirty-year 

normals, and the petitioner states he 

seldom has 30 years of historical data to 

make meaningful use of the model. 

Therefore, he does not believe that using 

the Oregon State University modeling 

tool would have provided more accurate 

GDD data at the time he was developing 

the petition than the data he obtained 

from weather stations. 

iii. TTB Response 

After reviewing the petition and the 

comments, TTB has determined that the 

climate of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA distinguishes it from the 

surrounding regions. TTB agrees with 

the petition’s statement that much of the 

proposed AVA is in the climate zone 

originally identified as ‘‘Marine’’ by 

Sisson and Vossen, which was 

characterized as being too cool for grape 

growing. TTB points to the climate zone 

map included in the petition as 

evidence that much of the proposed 

AVA is in the Marine zone.24 TTB also 

notes that comment 51 acknowledges 

that some vineyards in the Freestone 

and Occidental regions are within the 

Marine zone. TTB lacks data that 

determines definitively the reason 

viticulture is now occurring in a zone 

originally defined as too cool for grape 

growing. However, TTB has determined 

that the petition’s description of a large 

portion of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA being in the Marine zone is 

not inaccurate. 

TTB finds that, although part of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is 

within the Coastal Cool zone, the 

climate zone map in the petition shows 

the portion within the Coastal Cool zone 

is smaller than the portion of the regions 

east of the proposed AVA that are 

within the Coastal Cool zone. TTB also 

notes that the petition did not state that 

the proposed AVA contains only regions 

within the Marine zone; the petition 

describes the climate as ‘‘ ‘Marine’ to 

‘Coastal Cool’ ’’ and notes that the 

proposed AVA ‘‘contains the western 

edge of the Coastal Cool climate type.’’ 

Therefore, TTB believes that the 

proposed AVA’s climate can be 

distinguished from that of the region 

farther east, which lacks the Marine 

zone and is instead in the Coastal Cool, 

Coastal Cool transitioning to Coastal 

Warm, and Coastal Warm zones. 

Based on the climate zone map in the 

petition, TTB does not agree with the 

assertion in comment 51 that a 

‘‘significant portion of the Russian River 

Valley AVA in the eastern portion of the 

Sonoma Coast AVA’’ is within the 

Marine zone. Using the climate zone 

map, TTB believes that only the extreme 

southern portion of the Russian River 

Valley AVA, roughly the triangular 

region from Cunningham south to 

Roblar and east to U.S. Highway 101, 

would be in the Marine zone. TTB 

agrees that the fog map included as 

Exhibit A–6 to comment 51 shows 

marine fog extending east of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA into 

the Russian River Valley AVA, but the 

map only shows the fog as it occurred 

on a single day. Therefore, TTB cannot 

determine from the map alone that the 

petition was incorrect in stating that the 

region east of the proposed AVA is not 

typically subjected to the heaviest 

marine fog and air. 

TTB does agree with comment 51 that 

the Petaluma Gap AVA, to the south of 

the proposed AVA, is also within the 

same Marine zone as much of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

However, the petition did not use 

climate zones to distinguish the 

proposed AVA from the region to the 

south, and instead used topography, 

geology, and wind speed. Therefore, in 

spite of the climate zone similarity, TTB 

has determined that the petition 

provided suitable evidence for not 

including the Petaluma Gap AVA in the 

proposed AVA. 

TTB also agrees with comment 51 that 

several tables in the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA petition include 

incomplete or insufficient GDD data. 

For that reason, TTB did not consider 

the data in Tables 3 and 4 of the petition 

when determining if GDDs were a 

distinguishing feature of the proposed 

AVA. Additionally, the petition notes 

that the Laguna de Santa Rosa GDD data 

in Table 5 came from a station located 

in a bowl-like region that trapped cooler 

air and was thus not representative of 

the climate of the majority of the 

Russian River Valley AVA. For this 

reason, TTB did not consider the 

Laguna de Santa Rosa GDD data in that 

table. However, TTB did determine that 

Table 2 of the petition contains 

sufficient data to indicate lower GDD 

accumulations in the proposed AVA 

than are generally found in the region to 

the east. Table 2 includes four 

consecutive years of GDD data from a 

station in Occidental, located within the 

proposed AVA, and one from Windsor, 

within the Santa Rosa Plain 25 that 

covers much of the adjacent Russian 

River Valley AVA to the east of the 

proposed AVA. Each year, GDD 

accumulations within the proposed 

AVA were lower than those from the 

Windsor station. 

TTB does not agree that the GDD 

calculations in Exhibit B–1 of comment 

51 refute the petition’s claims of lower 

GDD accumulations in the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA. First, the 

comment’s calculations used data from 

2017 and 2018, which was not available 

at the time the petition was submitted. 

Second, the comment acknowledges 

that the summers of 2017 and 2018 were 

the two hottest summers on record in 

California, including the coastal regions, 

so it is possible that the resulting GDD 

accumulations are skewed and not 

indicative of typical weather patterns in 

Sonoma County. Additionally, the 

calculations in comment 51 used a 

growing season period of March 1 to 

October 31, compared to the petition’s 

growing season of April 1 to October 1. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31172 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

26See Exhibit A–2 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Finally, both of comment 51’s GDD 

calculation methods used a cap 

temperature, whereas the petition’s GDD 

method did not include a cap 

temperature. For these reasons, TTB 

does not find that the GDD calculations 

in comment 51 can be compared 

directly to the GDD calculations in the 

petition, nor do they disprove the 

petition’s claims that GDD 

accumulations east of the proposed 

AVA are generally higher than within 

the proposed AVA. 

TTB also disagrees that the graph 

created by the West Sonoma Coast 

Vintners and included in comment 51 

as Exhibit D–8 disproves the petition’s 

claim that nocturnal temperatures in the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA are 

generally warmer than nocturnal 

temperatures in the regions to the east. 

The graph does show that nighttime 

temperatures in the Russian River 

Valley and Green Valley of Russian 

River AVA are warmer than two of the 

three proposed AVA locations at hours 

20 through 24. However, the graph also 

shows that temperatures in the Russian 

River Valley and Green Valley of 

Russian River Valley AVAs continue to 

fall into the early morning hours, so that 

between hours 0 and 8, only one 

proposed AVA location has lower 

temperatures. Additionally, the graph 

does not include a period of record for 

the data, nor does it say where the 

weather stations were located within the 

Russian River Valley and Green Valley 

of Russian River Valley AVAs. As a 

result, TTB cannot determine the period 

of time the data represents, or if the data 

for each AVA comes from a single 

station or is an average of multiple 

stations’ data. Therefore, TTB does not 

believe that the graph in comment 51 

provides sufficient evidence to disprove 

the nocturnal temperature data in the 

petition. 

TTB disagrees with the assertion in 

Exhibit B–2 of comment 51 that the 

proposed AVA should not be 

established because the climate data in 

comment 54 is insufficient. TTB agrees 

that the single year of average maximum 

and minimum temperatures included in 

comment 54 is insufficient by itself to 

demonstrate climate differences. 

However, the petition did include 

similar data collected from multiple 

consecutive years. As described in 

Notice No. 177, the temperature data 

suggested that the proposed AVA 

generally has lower maximum 

temperatures and higher minimum 

temperatures than the region to the east. 

The information included in Exhibit B– 

2 of comment 51 does not disprove the 

data included in the petition, nor does 

it disprove the average maximum 

temperature and average minimum 

temperature date included in comment 

54. 

TTB does agree that the single year of 

diurnal temperature variation data 

included in comment 54 is insufficient 

to demonstrate a difference between the 

proposed AVA and the surrounding 

regions. However, TTB notes that 

diurnal temperature variation data was 

not included in the original petition, nor 

was it considered to be a distinguishing 

feature of the proposed AVA in Notice 

No. 177. Instead, GDDs and average 

monthly maximum temperatures and 

average monthly low temperatures were 

discussed as distinguishing climatic 

features. TTB believes that the climate 

data in the petition, along with the 

topographic and geologic information, is 

sufficient to demonstrate that conditions 

within the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

differ from those of the surrounding 

regions. 

With respect to the question of the 

petition’s wind speed data, TTB finds 

the wind speed map in comment 51 

(Exhibit A–4) does not refute the 

petition’s claim of higher wind speeds 

to the south of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA, within the 

Petaluma Gap AVA. TTB agrees with 

comment 51 that the wind speed map 

does appear to show that wind speeds 

immediately to the east of the proposed 

AVA, within the western portions of the 

Russian River Valley and Green Valley 

of Russian River AVAs, are lower, 

whereas the data in the petition that 

indicates higher wind speeds is from a 

location farther east within the Russian 

River Valley AVA, in the town of 

Windsor. The comment’s map indicates 

that wind speeds in the western parts of 

the Russian River Valley and Green 

Valley of Russian River Valley AVAs are 

generally less than 12 miles per hour. 

While wind speeds within those two 

AVAs may generally be lower than 

those generally found within the 

proposed AVA, the map also suggests 

that there are, in fact, regions east of the 

proposed AVA that do have higher wind 

speeds. In particular, the map shows 

wind speeds east of the Annapolis 

region of the proposed AVA reaching 

15.7 miles per hour, compared to calmer 

speeds of between 0 and 14.3 miles per 

hour near Annapolis. However, the 

regions of higher wind east of Annapolis 

have similar speeds to the regions near 

the southern end of the Fort RossSeaview AVA and between the towns of 

Jenner and Carmel, which calls into 

question the petition’s claim that winds 

east of the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA are higher than within the 

proposed AVA. As a result, TTB has 

determined that wind speeds cannot 

definitively distinguish the proposed 

AVA from the region to the east. 

However, TTB continues to believe that 

wind speed does distinguish the 

proposed AVA from the region to the 

south, within the Petaluma Gap AVA. 

Last, TTB disagrees with comment 51 

that the petition is incomplete because 

it did not include precipitation data 

from within the proposed AVA and the 

surrounding regions. The TTB 

regulations in § 9.12(a)(3)(i) list 

precipitation as a climate feature that 

may be used to distinguish a proposed 

AVA. However, the TTB regulations do 

not require a petition to include all the 

types of climate information listed in 

§ 9.12(a)(3)(i). Therefore, the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA can meet the 

regulatory requirements without 

discussing precipitation—or without 

mentioning climate at all—as long as at 

least one of the features listed in 

§ 9.12(a)(3) is used to distinguish it from 

the surrounding regions. 

4. Topography and Elevation 

i. Opposing Comments 

Two comments specifically oppose 

the petition’s characterization of the 

topography and elevation of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA and 

the surrounding regions. However, only 

comment 51 provides evidence to 

support its claims. Comment 51 first 

asserts that the four main regions of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA (the 

Fort Ross-Seaview AVA and the 

Annapolis, Freestone, and Occidental 

regions) are too diverse in topography 

and elevation to be included in a single, 

cohesive AVA. The comment claims the 

petition’s characterization of the 

proposed AVA as a region of steep, 

rugged mountains and ridgelines is 

inaccurate. According to the comment, 

the region near Annapolis is rugged and 

steep, but the Freestone region is not 

mountainous and instead consists of 

low rolling hills and valleys. The 

comment asserts the Occidental region 

is a mixture of mountains, ridgelines, 

and rolling hills with low valleys. 

Comment 51 also states that, contrary to 

the petition’s claims of lower elevations 

outside the proposed AVA, the adjacent 

areas have peaks exceeding 1,000 feet. 

The comment also includes a map of 

vineyard locations and elevations 

within the proposed AVA and states 

that vineyards in the four regions of the 

proposed AVA are planted at varying 

elevations, which results in different 

growing conditions within the proposed 

AVA.26 For example, the comment 

claims that all the vineyards except one 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31173 

27See Attachment B of comment 67 in docket 

TTB–2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

28See Attachment A of comment 67 in docket 

TTB–2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

29See Exhibit C of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

30See Exhibit A–8 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

within the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA are 

planted above 900 feet, which is above 

the fog line, while all vineyards in the 

Annapolis and Freestone regions are 

planted below 900 feet, which is within 

and below the fog line. Vineyards 

within the Occidental region, according 

to the comment, are planted both above 

and below the fog line. 

ii. Supporting Comments 

Twenty-one of the supporting 

comments address the topography and 

elevation of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA. All these comments note 

the area within the proposed AVA has 

high elevations and mountainous 

terrain, and some comments assert these 

two attributes contribute to unique 

growing conditions for viticulture 

within the proposed AVA. Comment 67, 

submitted by the petitioner, was the 

only supporting comment that provided 

substantive, non-anecdotal evidence. 

In comment 67, the petitioner 

responds to claims in comment 51 about 

the accuracy of the topographic and 

elevation evidence in the petition. The 

petitioner first addresses the topography 

of the Freestone region of the proposed 

AVA, which he described in the petition 

as steep. He acknowledges that the 

terrain ‘‘transitions to rolling hills south 

of Freestone, but the territory west of 

Freestone remains steep.’’ As evidence, 

he included a slope map of the entire 

proposed AVA and the surrounding 

regions,27 as well as a topographic 

profile of the region stretching westward 

from the most major road intersection in 

Freestone to the coast.28

With respect to the elevations within 

the proposed AVA, the petitioner 

disputes the claim in comment 51 that 

the Freestone region has elevations as 

low as 52 feet and lacks high coastal 

ridges. He notes that both Attachments 

A and B of his comment 67 demonstrate 

the presence of higher ridges in the 

regions west of Freestone. He states that 

elevations west of Freestone do not drop 

as low as 50 feet along Salmon Creek 

until the creek is less than 21⁄2 miles 

from the Pacific Ocean. The petitioner 

believes the low region described in 

comment 51 likely refers to the land 

along Estero Americano, which is south 

of the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA, within the Petaluma Gap AVA. 

Last, comment 67 acknowledges that 

there are elevations over 1,000 feet 

within the Russian River AVA, as stated 

in comment 51. However, the petitioner 

states that the description of the 

elevations of the Russian River Valley 

AVA that he included in the proposed 

AVA petition referred to ‘‘the terrain 

east of the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA at its adjacent location south of the 

Russian River (i.e., moving east from the 

common border onto the Santa Rosa 

Plain).’’ He then asserts that the higher 

peaks within the Russian River Valley 

AVA ‘‘are removed from the coastal 

ridges of the West Sonoma Coast’’ and 

therefore are not relevant to the 

distinguishing characteristics of the 

entire proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA. 

iii. TTB Response 

After reviewing the information in the 

petition and the comments, TTB has 

determined that topography and 

elevation are distinguishing features of 

the proposed AVA. TTB agrees with 

comment 51 that there is a range of 

elevations and slope angles within the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

However, TTB does not agree with 

comment 51 that the topography is too 

diverse to be included in a unified AVA. 

As noted earlier, the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA is located within 

two larger established AVAs: The 

Sonoma Coast AVA and the North Coast 

AVA. TTB recognizes that any AVA 

may have a degree of variation in its 

topography, but the AVA must still be 

distinguishable from the surrounding 

regions. The elevation map included in 

comment 51 shows that, while 

elevations below 400 feet do occur in 

the proposed AVA, most of the 

proposed AVA contains elevations 

between 400 and 2,297 feet. The 

Annapolis and Occidental regions, as 

well as the Fort Ross-Seaview AVA all 

contain elevations between 400 and 

2,297 feet, while the region near 

Freestone also contains elevations 

between 400 and 900 feet. 

TTB also agrees with comment 51 that 

certain peaks within the Sonoma Coast 

and Russian River AVAs east of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA do 

exceed 1,000 feet. However, TTB does 

not believe that the existence of certain 

peaks to the east of the proposed AVA 

that have elevations above 1,000 feet 

refutes the petition’s claims that 

elevations outside the proposed AVA 

are generally lower and less steep. The 

Russian River Valley is still largely 

characterized by the Santa Rosa Plain, 

which the petition states has lower 

elevations and gentle slopes of 5 percent 

or less. The Santa Rosa Plain is also 

located within the portion of the 

Sonoma Coast AVA that does not 

include the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA. To the south of the 

proposed AVA is the Petaluma Gap 

AVA (27 CFR 9.261), which is 

distinguished from surrounding areas by 

containing ‘‘low, rolling hills not 

exceeding 600 feet,’’ ‘‘small valleys and 

fluvial terraces,’’ and ‘‘flat land along 

the Petaluma River * * *.’’ (See T.D. 

TTB–149, December 7, 2017, 82 FR 

57660). 

5. Geology 

i. Opposing Comments 

Four comments oppose the AVA, 

asserting it contains geologies too 

diverse to be within one AVA. One of 

the opposing comments questions the 

petition’s description of the geology of 

the proposed AVA and the surrounding 

regions. Comment 51 asserts that the 

proposed AVA is not comprised 

predominately of sedimentary rock of 

the Franciscan Complex, as claimed in 

the petition, but instead is comprised of 

a variety of geologic features. The 

comment included a letter from 

professional geologist Ryan Padgett,29

along with a map of the geology of the 

proposed AVA and the surrounding 

regions 30 as evidence of the variety of 

geologic features within the proposed 

AVA. The comment states that the 

region near Annapolis where vineyards 

are planted is mainly Ohlson Ranch 

formation. Vineyards in the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA are planted mostly on 

what the comment describes as a 

‘‘me ́lange and greywacke sandstone and 

in a metabasalt unit of the Franciscan 

Formation with some localized 

plantings in Ohlson Ranch Formation 

* * *.’’ Last, the comment states that 

vineyards in the Freestone and 

Occidental regions are predominately 

planted in the Wilson Grove formation. 

The comment asserts that this fact is 

contrary to the petition’s claim that the 

Wilson Grove formation does not exist 

within the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA. 

ii. Supporting Comments 

Nineteen supporting comments 

address the geology of the proposed 

AVA, generally noting that the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA has a unique 

underlying geological structure. Some 

comments assert that the area within the 

proposed AVA has unique soil, and note 

this soil is comprised primarily of 

sedimentary material, rather than 

alluvium. 

Comment 67, submitted by the 

petitioner, was the only comment that 

included substantive evidence to 

support its claims. Comment 67 first 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31174 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

31See Attachment G of comment 67 in docket 

TTB–2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

32See Exhibit A–9 to comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

33https://www.ttb.gov/wine/p51204_ava_

manual.pdf. 

34See Exhibit A–1 to comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

35See Exhibits D–1 through D–7 of comment 51 

in docket TTB–2018–0008 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 36See Exhibit D–2 of comment 51 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

states that, contrary to the assertion in 

comment 51, the petition does not claim 

the Wilson Grove Formation is not 

found within the proposed AVA. 

Instead, the petition states that the 

Wilson Grove Formation is ‘‘a much 

more common unit in the Petaluma Gap 

and southwestern Russian River Valley’’ 

outside of the proposed AVA. The 

petitioner agrees with comment 51 that 

the Wilson Grove Formation is found in 

the southeastern portion of the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA. However, the 

petitioner provides a geologic map 31 of 

the proposed AVA and surrounding 

regions to support his claim that, while 

the Wilson Grove Formation is present 

in portions of the proposed AVA, it is 

more common in the regions to the 

south and east of the proposed AVA. 

iii. TTB Response 

After reviewing the petition and the 

comments, TTB has determined that 

geology is a distinguishing feature of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

TTB agrees with the petitioner’s 

statement in comment 67 that the 

petition did not exclude the Wilson 

Grove formation entirely from the 

proposed AVA. The petition indicates 

that the formation is present in a portion 

of the proposed AVA, but the formation 

is much more common outside the 

proposed AVA, particularly in the 

Petaluma Gap and Green Valley of 

Russian River Valley AVAs and the 

southwestern region of the Russian 

River Valley AVA. TTB believes the 

geologic maps included in comments 51 

and comment 67 support the 

petitioner’s claims. 

TTB also believes that the geologic 

maps in comments 51 and 67, along 

with the letter from the professional 

geologist included in comment 51, do 

not refute the petitioner’s claims 

regarding the prevalence of the geologic 

unit known as the Franciscan Formation 

within the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA. Therefore, TTB has determined 

that the petition correctly identifies the 

Franciscan Formation as comprising 

much of the proposed AVA. 

Although comment 51 is correct that 

the vineyards in the Annapolis, 

Freestone, and Occidental regions of the 

proposed AVA are planted in geologic 

features other than the Franciscan 

Complex, those regions still contain 

large regions of Franciscan Complex. 

For example, the Annapolis region 

contains geologic units identified on the 

map in Exhibit A–8 of the comment as 

‘‘Sandstone–Maastrichtian (Franciscan 

Complex).’’ The Freestone and 

Occidental regions contain units 

identified as ‘‘Graywacke and me ́lange 

(Franciscan Complex).’’ Furthermore, 

the geologic map indicates that 

vineyards in the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA are planted on the same unit of the 

Franciscan Formation found in the 

Annapolis region. Therefore, TTB 

believes the petition is correct when it 

states that the Franciscan Complex 

comprises much of the proposed AVA. 

6. Proposed AVA Boundary 

i. Opposing Comments 

Two comments specifically object to 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

on the basis of the proposed boundary. 

The two comments, comments 51 and 

52, both express the belief that the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

contains too many public and protected 

lands and beaches on which vineyards 

will never be planted. Comment 51 

includes a map of the public and 

protected lands within the proposed 

AVA 32 and further states that lands 

unavailable for commercial viticulture 

should be removed from the proposed 

boundaries, per guidance given in TTB’s 

AVA Manual for Petitioners.33

Comment 51 also claims that when 

TTB excluded the town of Fort Ross in 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA, the bureau 

set a precedent for omitting coastal 

regions from AVAs. According to the 

comment, TTB did not agree with the 

Fort Ross-Seaview AVA petition’s 

proposal to include the town in the 

AVA because the town was located in 

a cold, low-elevation area near the 

coastline where viticulture is not viable. 

Comment 51 also asserts that TTB 

should reject the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA boundary because 

the written boundary description in the 

petition does not match the proposed 

boundaries drawn on the USGS maps or 

the boundary as published in Notice No. 

177. The comment provided several 

examples of what it described as 

inaccuracies in the written boundary 

description, including incorrect 

distances between points and erroneous 

section numbers.34

Another issue raised in comment 51 

is the placement of the northeastern 

boundary of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA. The northeastern boundary 

omits from the proposed AVA a 

mountainous region that comment 51 

refers to as the ‘‘Excluded Corridor.’’ 

According to the comment, this region 

contains similar topography to the 

proposed AVA and was arbitrarily 

excluded. 

Comment 51 further claims that the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

boundary is arbitrarily drawn because it 

does not include all the regions 

previously promoted by the West 

Sonoma Coast Vintners as being in the 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ The comment 

includes several West Sonoma Coast 

Vintners publications showing that 

portions of the Russian River Valley, 

Green Valley of Russian River Valley, 

and Petaluma Gap AVAs, as well as the 

region informally known as Sebastopol 

Hills, were at various times represented 

by the association as being part of the 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ 35 The comment 

notes that as late as 2018, the 

association promoted the Sebastopol 

Hills region as part of the ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast AVA Marketing 

Region.’’ 36 According to the comment, 

these various representations of the 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ demonstrate that 

the boundary proposed in the AVA 

petition is not based on solid name or 

distinguishing features evidence, as 

required by § 9.12(a)(2) of the TTB 

regulations. 

ii. Supporting Comments 

In response to Notice No. 177, TTB 

received thirteen comments that support 

the boundaries of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA. Nine of the 

comments generally express support for 

the proposed AVA as a way to create a 

smaller, more tightly defined AVA 

within the larger, more diverse Sonoma 

Coast AVA. 

Four comments submitted in response 

to Notice No. 177 specifically express 

support for the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA boundary as it was described 

in the proposed rule. One of these 

comments (comment 55) supports the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

boundaries, in general, but also asks that 

they be expanded. Comment 55, 

submitted by Hans Vidkjer of Atlas 

Vineyard Management, requests that the 

proposed northeastern boundary be 

expanded slightly to include Walala 

Vineyard. Mr. Vidkjer claims that the 

vineyard, which contains 18 acres of 

Pinot Noir, is only 0.7 mile east of the 

proposed AVA boundary. The comment 

contains evidence that Mr. Vidkjer 

believes demonstrates that the Walala 

Vineyard has mean temperatures, 

nocturnal temperatures, elevations, 

slopes, and geology that are similar to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31175 

those of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA. 

The other three comments specifically 

support using the coastline as the 

western boundary of the proposed AVA. 

Comment 53, submitted by the 

winegrower of Peay Vineyards, states 

that the coastline was used as the 

western boundary ‘‘as a matter of 

simplicity.’’ Comment 70, submitted by 

a self-identified local wine industry 

member, believes the coastal regions 

should remain in the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA. The comment 

acknowledges that is it difficult to ripen 

grapes in the extreme coastal regions of 

the proposed AVA, but ‘‘it is not 

impossible to achieve a level of ripeness 

that would enable a producer to 

produce a sparkling wine from this lessripe fruit.’’ Comment 67, submitted by 

the petitioner, also states that the 

coastline was used for simplicity. The 

comment goes on to say that removing 

all the public and protected lands from 

the proposed AVA would also have 

created an unnecessarily complicated 

boundary. The petitioner notes that TTB 

has established AVAs that include 

publicly-owned lands in order to avoid 

creating boundaries that are 

cumbersome to describe and difficult to 

administer. As evidence, he cites the 

Malibu Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.235), 

where 37 percent of the land within the 

AVA is administered by the Federal 

Government or the State of California. 

Comment 67 also addresses comment 

51’s discussion of the discrepancies 

between the written boundary 

description and the boundary drawn on 

the USGS maps. The petitioner believes 

that the commenters may have relied 

upon copies of the USGS maps that 

were included as Exhibit A to the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

petition. The petitioner notes, however, 

that he worked in consultation with 

TTB to make ‘‘modest adjustments’’ to 

the proposed boundaries to provide 

better clarity and simplification to the 

boundary description. These 

consultations took place in January of 

2017, and as a result, the boundary 

description included in the proposed 

rule would not exactly match the 

original boundaries drawn on the USGS 

maps at the time the commenters may 

have viewed them. The petitioner states 

that any typographic errors appearing in 

the boundary description of the 

proposed rule may be corrected as 

needed, but they ‘‘do not otherwise 

discredit the integrity of the proposed 

boundary.’’ 

The petitioner also explains why the 

proposed AVA boundary does not 

include the region referred to in 

comment 51 as the ‘‘Excluded 

Corridor.’’ He claims that his field 

review of the region around Annapolis 

found a noticeable shift in vegetation 

approximately 8 miles inland from the 

coast. He explains that such a shift in 

vegetation signals a difference in 

climate and possibly soils. Therefore, 

even though the terrain of the Exclusion 

Corridor resembles that of the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA, the change in 

vegetation strongly suggests the region 

does not share the same climate or 

underlying geology as the proposed 

AVA and should not be included. 

In comment 67, the petitioner then 

addresses why the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA boundary does not 

include certain regions that were 

previously described in various West 

Sonoma Coast Vintners publications as 

being within the ‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ 

The petitioner explains that when the 

West Sonoma Coast Vintners association 

was first formed, it was ‘‘originally 

concerned with discerning the coolest 

regions of the west Sonoma Coast AVA 

from the greater Sonoma Coast AVA.’’ 

The Green Valley of Russian River AVA, 

the Sebastopol Hills region, and a 

portion of the Petaluma Gap AVA were 

all considered to be cooler than the 

regions of the Sonoma Coast AVA that 

are farther inland and were included in 

the association’s early maps of the 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ Over time, and 

after consultation with AVA experts, the 

group determined that the extreme 

coastal mountains are unique from the 

milder topography of the Petaluma Gap 

and Green Valley of Russian River 

Valley AVAs, and also the Sebastopol 

Hills region. As a result, these regions 

ultimately were not included in the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

boundary that was submitted to TTB. 

iii. TTB Response 

After careful review of the petition 

and comments, TTB has determined 

that the boundary as it was described in 

Notice No. 177, with the addition of the 

Walala Vineyard as requested in 

comment 55, is appropriate and shall be 

maintained. 

TTB does not believe that the 

coastline and all public and protected 

lands need to be removed from the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. To 

do so would create an unnecessarily 

complex boundary that would be 

difficult to describe and to administer. 

Although TTB’s AVA Manual for 

Petitioners does recommend removing 

public lands or lands otherwise 

unavailable for commercial viticulture, 

it does not require it. TTB typically does 

not request the removal of these lands 

unless they may be easily excluded 

without creating holes within the 

interior of the proposed AVA or an 

overly complex boundary description. 

Examples of established AVAs whose 

petitions specifically mention that the 

AVAs contain public lands include 

Upper Hiwassee Highlands (27 CFR 

9.234) and Malibu Coast (27 CFR 9.235). 

TTB does not agree with comment 51 

that the exclusion of the town of Fort 

Ross from the established Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA set a precedent for 

removing all coastal lands from AVAs. 

TTB has established many AVAs whose 

boundaries include a coastline, 

including the North Coast and Sonoma 

Coast AVAs, as well as the Martha’s 

Vineyard (27 CFR 9.73), Long Island (27 

CFR 9.170), Outer Coastal Plain (27 CFR 

9.207), and Tip of the Mitt (27 CFR 

9.257) AVAs. TTB notes that the town 

of Fort Ross was not included in the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA because one of 

the key features of the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA is elevations above 900 

feet; the town of Fort Ross is located at 

lower elevations. Therefore, excluding a 

town with lower elevations from an 

AVA that is primarily characterized by 

elevations above 900 feet is appropriate, 

especially when removing the town 

from the AVA would not create a hole 

in the interior of the AVA. In addition, 

the exclusion of Fort Ross from the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA did not preclude 

TTB from including both the town and 

the AVA in the established Sonoma 

Coast and North Coast AVAs, which are 

larger, regional AVAs with broad 

characteristics that both the town and 

the AVA share. 

TTB acknowledges that the proposed 

boundary description for the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA that was 

included in Notice No. 177 is different 

from the description contained in the 

petition and originally shown on the 

USGS maps. TTB regularly works with 

petitioners to ensure that the boundary 

description meets TTB requirements 

and is described and defined as clearly 

as possible. When TTB accepts a 

petition as ‘‘perfected,’’ that simply 

means an initial review of the petition 

finds that it contains sufficient evidence 

to meet the regulatory requirements. 

However, TTB’s acceptance of a 

‘‘perfected’’ petition does not mean that 

TTB will not ask for additional 

information or edits to clarify the 

information or proposed boundary in 

the petition before publishing a 

proposed rule. TTB acknowledges that 

there are some minor typographic errors 

in the boundary description in Notice 

No. 177, particularly in paragraphs 

(c)(2), (14), (15), (21), and (24). These 

errors have been corrected in the 

boundary description at the end of this 

document. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31176 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

37See Figure 10 to comment 55 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

38See Figure 11 of comment 55 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

39See Figure 13 of comment 55 in docket TTB– 

2018–0008 at https://www.regulations.gov. 

With respect to the ‘‘Excluded 

Corridor’’ referred to in comment 51, 

TTB believes that the petition, along 

with the information provided by the 

petitioner in comment 67, provides a 

sufficient rationale for not including 

this region in the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA. East of the 

proposed northeastern boundary, the 

climate is not affected by the heaviest 

marine influence and transitions 

entirely to the Coastal Cool zone and 

then to the Coastal Warm zone. 

TTB does not agree with the assertion 

in comment 51 that the proposed AVA 

boundary is arbitrarily drawn and does 

not comply with the requirements of 

§ 9.12(a)(2) of the TTB regulations. The 

petition included evidence that 

topography, climate, and geology are 

different outside the boundary of the 

proposed AVA. The petition also 

included evidence to demonstrate those 

regions of Sonoma County that are 

considered to be in the ‘‘West Sonoma 

Coast,’’ and the proposed boundary does 

not include regions that are not known 

by that name. 

TTB does not believe that the West 

Sonoma Coast Vintners’ changing 

definition of what defines the ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast’’ demonstrates that the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

boundaries are arbitrarily drawn. TTB 

agrees with the petitioner’s assertion in 

comment 67 that the association refined 

over the years what it considered to be 

the key factors of the region—namely, 

mountainous terrain with heavy marine 

influence. Therefore, it is not 

inappropriate that the boundary that 

was proposed for a West Sonoma Coast 

AVA differs from what the association 

originally envisioned. 

TTB also does not agree that the 

historical publications of the West 

Sonoma Coast Vintners are attempts by 

the association to mislead or deceive 

TTB or the public or to violate the 

requirements of § 4.39(a)(1) of the TTB 

regulations, as suggested in comment 

51. The TTB regulations do not prohibit 

the region known by a proposed AVA 

name to be larger than the area included 

in the AVA. The regulations also do not 

prohibit an association from accepting 

members who are not within the 

boundaries of the AVA. However, TTB 

does note that wines produced 

primarily from grapes grown outside the 

AVA would not be allowed to be labeled 

with the AVA name or to be marketed 

as coming from within the AVA. 

As previously mentioned, TTB is 

modifying the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA boundary to include the 

Walala Vineyard, which is just east of 

the Annapolis region of the proposed 

AVA. Comment 55, which requests 

including Walala Vineyard in the 

proposed AVA, provided information 

on the climate, elevations, slope angle, 

and geology of the Walala Vineyard. The 

Walala Vineyard climate data was 

compared to the climate of the Goldrock 

Vineyard, located within both the 

proposed AVA and the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA, and to Windsor, which 

was the inland comparison location 

used in the proposed AVA petition. The 

data suggests that the mean growing 

season temperatures within the Walala 

Vineyard are very similar to those in the 

Goldrock Vineyard and cooler than 

those in Windsor. The data also suggests 

that minimum temperatures within the 

Walala Vineyard are higher than those 

in Windsor; minimum temperature data 

was not included for the Goldrock 

Vineyard. These climate findings are 

similar to those included in the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

petition, which indicate cooler 

maximum and warmer minimum 

temperatures within the proposed AVA 

than are found in the inland regions to 

the east. Comment 55 also described the 

average elevation within the Walala 

Vineyard as 1,150 feet, which is within 

the range of elevations included in the 

proposed AVA and higher than the 

average elevation of the Santa Rosa 

Plain, within the Russian River Valley 

AVA. The comment also provided a 

map of slope angles that indicates the 

Walala Vineyard has slope angles 

similar to those in the Annapolis region 

of the proposed AVA, which is adjacent 

to the Walala Vineyard.37 Finally, the 

comment included a geologic maps of 

the vineyard and the Annapolis region, 

which indicates that the vineyard is 

located on the Franciscan Formation 38

and has soils derived from weathered 

sedimentary rock,39 similar to the 

proposed AVA. 

In response to an inquiry from TTB, 

Mr. Shabram provided an email 

indicating that the board of directors of 

the West Sonoma Coast Vintners voted 

unanimously to expand the proposed 

AVA boundary to include Walala 

Vineyard. Because of the evidence 

included in comment 55, TTB is 

modifying the boundary of the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA to include the 

Walala Vineyard. 

7. FAA Act and TTB Regulations 

i. Opposing Comments 

Comment 51 asserts that establishing 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

would be an ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ 

decision ‘‘inconsistent with the 

purposes of the FAA Act and [TTB] 

Regulations’’ and ‘‘contrary to the 

public interest.’’ The comment first 

notes that the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act) 

‘‘prohibit[s] consumer deception and 

the use of misleading statements’’ on 

wine labels. The comment then states 

that TTB regulations in § 4.39 prohibit 

wine labels from containing ‘‘[a]ny 

statement that is false or untrue in any 

particular’’ or creates a ‘‘misleading 

impression.’’ Furthermore, the comment 

claims that the petition contains ‘‘a 

number of factual errors, unverified and 

incomplete or illegible documents, data, 

charts, and maps’’ and cannot be 

considered ‘‘true and correct.’’ For these 

reasons, the comment claims that 

allowing wine to be labeled as ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast’’ would mislead 

consumers by falsely attributing 

‘‘common quality, reputation, and 

characteristics’’ to wine made from 

grapes grown in an AVA comprised of 

regions with ‘‘dissimilar climates, 

geology, physical features and 

maximum and minimum elevations.’’ 

ii. Supporting Comments 

TTB did not receive any comments 

specifically addressing the comment’s 

claims that establishing the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA would be 

arbitrary and capricious, and 

inconsistent with the FAA Act or TTB 

regulations. However, TTB did receive 

20 comments that express the belief that 

the proposed AVA would provide more 

information to consumers and help 

them distinguish coastal wines from 

wines made from grape grown farther 

inland. As discussed earlier in this 

document, TTB also received numerous 

comments supporting the petition’s 

claim that the various regions within the 

proposed AVA contain similar 

distinguishing features that distinguish 

the proposed AVA from the larger 

established Sonoma Coast AVA. 

iii. TTB Response 

TTB has carefully reviewed the 

information in the petition and in the 

comments received in response to 

Notice No. 177, including the 

information in comment 51. TTB 

believes that the information in 

comment 51 and in other opposing 

comments does not conclusively 

demonstrate that all the information in 

the petition is false, misleading, or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31177 

erroneous. Based on information 

provided in comment 51, TTB has reevaluated its determination that wind 

speeds distinguish the proposed AVA 

from the region to the east. However, as 

discussed earlier in this document, TTB 

still believes the petition provided 

sufficient information to meet the 

regulatory requirements for an AVA 

petition; namely, the petition provided 

name evidence, a delineated boundary, 

and evidence that the various regions 

within the AVA share similar features 

that are distinguishable from the 

surrounding regions and affect 

viticulture. Therefore, TTB does not 

believe that establishing the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA would be an 

arbitrary and capricious decision 

inconsistent with the FAA Act or TTB 

regulations, nor does TTB believe that 

allowing wines to be labeled with ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast’’ as an appellation of 

origin would mislead the public. 

B. Comments on Inclusion of Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA 

Twenty-one comments specifically 

mentioned the proposal to include the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA within the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. Ten 

comments opposed the inclusion, while 

11 comments supported it. Six of the 

supporting comments and three of the 

opposing comments were submitted by 

wine industry members who 

specifically indicated affiliations with 

wineries or vineyards within the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA. 

Several of the comments simply 

expressed opposition or support with a 

general statement that the 

characteristics of the established AVA 

were either similar to or different from 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

However, other comments mentioned 

specific reasons for opposing or 

supporting the proposed AVA. Those 

specific reasons will be discussed in the 

following sections. 

1. Reputation of Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA. 

i. Opposing Comments 

Five comments express the belief that 

the reputation of the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA would be harmed if it were 

included in the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA. Four of these comments 

were submitted by wine industry 

members who claim an affiliation with 

vineyards or wineries within the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA (comments 44, 48, 

and 51). The opposing comments 

generally claim that the characteristics 

of the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA would be 

‘‘watered down’’ (comment 48) if it were 

included, and that ‘‘the elements that 

make Fort Ross–Seaview so unique 

would be lost in this change’’ (comment 

41). The result would be ‘‘quite 

confusing to consumers,’’ (comment 44) 

who would no longer know what to 

expect from wines labeled with the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA. This consumer 

confusion could lead to ‘‘incalculable 

damage’’ for winemakers and grape 

growers within the AVA (comment 51). 

ii. Supporting Comments 

Six of the comments disagree with the 

idea that the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA 

would be diminished or devalued if it 

was included in the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA. Four of these 

comments were submitted by wine 

industry members who claim an 

affiliation with vineyards or wineries 

within the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA 

(comments 31, 34, 63, and 66). 

Comment 31 believes that the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA and the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA are 

‘‘harmonious and complementary,’’ and 

that including the established AVA in 

the proposed AVA will help customers 

‘‘distinguish wines from the coast’’ of 

Sonoma County. The commenter also 

notes that her vineyard, Hirsch 

Vineyards ‘‘are strong proponents of the 

Fort Ross Seaview AVA, and helped 

foster its creation.’’ The winemaker of 

Alma Fria Wines submitted two 

comments (comments 34 and 66) that 

support including the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA in the proposed AVA. In 

comment 34, he expressed his belief 

that including the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA in the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA would ‘‘help bring clarity to 

consumers’’ because wines from the 

proposed AVA ‘‘have much in common 

with each other and very little in 

common with wines from other areas’’ 

of the larger Sonoma Coast AVA. In 

comment 66, he states that both the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA and the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA are 

‘‘supported by the facts and can co-exist 

without impacting each other.’’ 

Comment 63, submitted jointly by six 

wineries and vineyards within the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA, believes that 

‘‘growers, winemakers, wine writers, 

other wine professionals, and many 

consumers recognize the similarities 

between the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA 

and the greater West Sonoma Coast’’ 

and that ‘‘[t]hese similarities set the 

entire West Sonoma Coast region apart 

from the greater Sonoma Coast AVA 

including the Russian River Valley and 

Petaluma Gap AVAs.’’ 

Comment 59 uses the example of the 

AVAs located within the Napa Valley 

AVA (27 CFR 9.23) to illustrate the 

belief that inclusion in the proposed 

AVA would not harm the reputation of 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA. The 

comment notes that, while there are 

‘‘significant distinctions’’ between each 

of the smaller AVAs within Napa 

Valley, they all share the overarching 

characteristics of the ‘‘long established 

and much appreciated Napa Valley 

AVA.’’ The comment also notes the lack 

of petitions requesting the removal of 

the smaller AVAs from the Napa Valley 

AVA, and suggests this demonstrates 

that the Napa Valley AVA and the 

smaller AVAs within it benefit from 

each other, as the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA and the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA would benefit from each 

other. 

Comment 61, from the sales director 

of a vineyard located within the Napa 

Valley AVA, also compares the 

inclusion of the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA in the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA to the smaller AVAs located 

within the Napa Valley AVA. He claims 

that, although the Napa Valley AVA 

name is ‘‘the most valuable designation 

in American viticulture,’’ the 

appellation does not ‘‘diminish the 

usefulness of distinguishing wines’’ 

made within the smaller nested AVAs. 

The comment concludes that the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA is ‘‘undoubtedly as 

Western Sonoma and as coastal as 

Rutherford [AVA] and Oakville [AVA] 

are Napa Valley [AVA].’’ 

iii. TTB Response 

After careful review of the petition 

and comments, TTB believes that, 

although it has unique features, the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA still shares the 

broad distinguishing characteristics of 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

In particular, both regions have steep 

mountainous terrain, sedimentary soil, 

and a maritime-influenced climate that 

is generally cooler during the day and 

warmer during the night than the more 

inland regions of Sonoma County. 

Because both regions share these 

similarities, TTB does not believe that 

including the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA 

within the proposed AVA would 

mislead consumers. Furthermore, 

establishment of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA would not require 

winemakers to discontinue use of the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA name or to 

adopt the West Sonoma Coast AVA 

name. Such decisions would be entirely 

up to the individual proprietors. 

TTB also does not find that the 

commenters provided evidence to 

support their claims that the reputation 

of the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA would be 

harmed by the establishment of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, or 

that the inclusion of an established AVA 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31178 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

within a larger AVA would be 

detrimental to the smaller AVA’s image. 

TTB notes that many well-known AVAs 

are located within other AVAs, 

including the Arroyo Seco (27 CFR 

9.59), Sta. Rita Hills (27 CFR 9.162), Red 

Mountain (27 CFR 9.167), Yakima 

Valley (27 CFR 9.69), and Eola–Amity 

Hills (27 CFR 9.202) AVAs. The 

reputation of an AVA and 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. 

2. Previous TTB Rulings 

i. Opposing Comments 

Three comments oppose including the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA in the 

proposed AVA because they believe 

doing so would contradict previous TTB 

rulings, specifically T.D. TTB–98, which 

established the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA. 

Only one of these comments (comment 

51) was from a wine industry member 

located within the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA. 

Comment 38 notes that T.D. TTB–98 

established the Fort Ross–Seaview 

based on its unique climate and geology. 

The commenter asserts that including it 

‘‘as part of a larger area simply confuses 

that prior designation without any 

evidence that the prior AVA’s 

boundaries were mistakenly restrictive.’’ 

Comments 51 and 52 both cite TTB’s 

decision in T.D. TTB–98 not to include 

the region near Annapolis in the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA. According to these 

two comments, TTB’s decision 

demonstrates that the two regions are 

too dissimilar to be included in a single 

AVA. Comment 51 also asserts that 

TTB’s initial acceptance of a petition to 

establish a Freestone–Occidental AVA 

in 2008 further demonstrates that the 

region of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA which includes Freestone 

and Occidental is a distinct region that 

should not be included in an AVA that 

also includes the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA. To include the Fort Ross–Seaview 

in a single AVA that contains such 

different regions would, according to 

comment 51, be ‘‘requesting TTB to 

create a new type of hybrid AVA.’’ 

Comment 51 also asserts that, by 

establishing the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA, TTB has already determined that 

it is ‘‘viticulturally distinguishable’’ 

from the surrounding regions. 

Therefore, including it in the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA would 

‘‘undermine the credibility and the 

integrity of the AVA system,’’ as well as 

negate the findings of T.D. TTB–98. 

First, the comment states that rainfall is 

substantially higher in the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA than in the Annapolis, 

Freestone, and Occidental regions of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA. The 

comment also states that T.D. TTB–98 

determined that the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA was in the Coastal Cool zone, not 

the Marine zone, and is therefore not as 

influenced by marine fog as other 

regions in the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA. Elevations within the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA are above the fog 

line, allowing greater solar radiation 

exposure and warmer daytime 

temperatures than are generally found 

within the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA. The comment cites the exclusion 

of the Santa Cruz Mountains AVA (27 

CFR 9.31) from both the larger San 

Francisco Bay AVA (27 CFR 9.157) and 

Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75) as an 

example of an instance where a smaller 

AVA was determined to be too distinct 

to be included in a larger overlapping 

AVA. 

ii. Supporting Comments 

Comment 67, submitted by the 

petitioner, was the only comment to 

address how the inclusion of the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA in the proposed 

West Sonoma Coast AVA would affect 

TTB’s determination in T.D. TTB–98. 

In comment 67, the petitioner 

responds to the reasons cited in 

comment 51 to exclude the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA from the proposed AVA. 

He first states that the proposed AVA 

petition is not an effort ‘‘to apply the 

characteristics that define the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA to the entire West 

Sonoma Coast region,’’ and that the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is 

not defined by all of the same 

distinguishing criteria as the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA. Referencing a 2010 letter 

submitted to TTB during the rulemaking 

process that led to the creation of the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA, the petitioner 

notes that the Fort Ross–Seaview is a 

‘‘local wine growing area,’’ while the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA is a 

‘‘regional viticultural area’’ which may 

encompass smaller, more localized 

AVAs. Establishing the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA, he claims, would 

have no impact on the continued 

existence of the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA. 

The petitioner also shows that the 

exclusion of the Annapolis region from 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA does not 

preclude the two regions from being 

included in a larger, regional AVA. He 

states that including the Annapolis 

region in the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA in 

T.D. TTB–98 would not have been 

appropriate because the primary feature 

of the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA was a 

location that was generally above the fog 

line. The Annapolis region did not meet 

this criteria, nor did the name ‘‘Fort 

Ross–Seaview’’ apply to the Annapolis 

region. He states that, for these reasons, 

the Annapolis region did not belong in 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA. However, 

including both regions in a larger 

coastal AVA that also includes other 

coastal regions of Sonoma County 

would be appropriate because the 

regions all share the broad 

characteristics of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA, such as 

sedimentary soils, a marine-influenced 

climate, and steep coastal ridges. 

iii. TTB Response 

After reviewing the petition and the 

comments, TTB does not believe that 

including the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA 

within the proposed West Sonoma Coast 

AVA would be inconsistent with the 

findings of T.D. TTB–98, which 

established the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA. 

TTB believes it is appropriate to include 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA within the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, as 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA shares the 

mountainous topography and marineinfluenced climate of the surrounding 

regions. T.D. TTB–98 describes the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA as having steep, 

mountainous terrain, soils derived from 

sedimentary rock, and temperatures that 

are moderated by the convection and 

conduction of fog from the Pacific 

Ocean. These distinguishing features are 

similar to the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA, which is described in TTB 

Notice No. 177 as containing steep, 

rugged mountains and ridgelines, soils 

derived from the sedimentary rock of 

the Franciscan Complex, and a climate 

influenced by the cold marine air and 

heavy marine fog from the Pacific 

Ocean. Further, while Comment 51 

notes the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA is 

distinguished by elevations that are 

generally above the fog line, T.D. TTB– 

98 does show that vineyards in the AVA 

benefit from being near the fog line. T.D. 

TTB–98 states that the Fort-Ross 

Seaview AVA is ‘‘in the heaviest fog 

intrusion area,’’ and the vineyards still 

receive ‘‘some cooling via conduction 

due to the close proximity of the fog 

layer.’’ Last, while Comment 51 asserts 

rainfall amounts in the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA may differ from those in 

the rest of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA, TTB notes that rainfall 

amounts were not determined to be a 

distinguishing feature of either the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA, as 

described in Notice No. 177, or the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA, as described in 

T.D. TTB–98. 

TTB also disagrees that including the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA within a larger 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31179 

40https://www.sonomacounty.com/articles/fortross-seaview-wine-region-and-appellation. 

41https://sonomawinegrape.org/about/sonomacounty-terroir. 

42https://www.hirschvineyards.com/The-Site/ 

West-Sonoma-Coast. 

43https://redcarwine.com/. 

AVA would create a ‘‘new hybrid type 

of AVA,’’ as asserted in comment 51. 

TTB regulations allow for the creation of 

smaller AVAs within larger AVAs, as 

well as the creation of larger AVAs that 

encompass one or more smaller AVAs. 

TTB and its predecessor agency, ATF, 

have both established numerous AVAs 

that are within or contain other AVAs, 

and TTB believes that consumers and 

industry members generally understand 

and accept the concept of these socalled ‘‘nested’’ AVAs. TTB notes that 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA is already 

within the established Sonoma Coast 

AVA and the North Coast AVA. Also, as 

discussed above, TTB notes the 

examples of the Arroyo Seco, Sta. Rita 

Hills, Red Mountain, Yakima Valley, 

and Eola–Amity Hills AVAs, which are 

all located within other larger 

established AVAs. 

TTB also does not believe that either 

the decision to exclude the Annapolis 

region from the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA 

in T.D. TTB–98 or the previous attempt 

to establish a Freestone–Occidental 

AVA means that the two regions are too 

dissimilar to be included along with the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA in a single new 

West Sonoma Coast AVA. As stated in 

comment 67, the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA encompasses a very localized 

microclimate within the larger 

established Sonoma Coast and North 

Coast AVAs. The characteristics of the 

Annapolis region were determined to be 

too distinctive to be a part of the same 

limited Fort Ross–Seaview AVA 

microclimate. Additionally, TTB found 

that the ‘‘Fort Ross–Seaview’’ name did 

not apply to the Annapolis region. 

However, the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA represents the more regional 

microclimate found throughout the 

extreme coastal regions of Sonoma 

County. Although the Freestone– 

Occidental and Annapolis regions and 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA each have 

some unique features, they all share the 

characteristics of this larger regional 

microclimate. 

3. Name Recognition 

i. Opposing Comments 

Comment 51 states that the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA should not be included in 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

because ‘‘the smaller Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA has name recognition that clearly 

distinguishes it’’ from the proposed 

AVA. The comment also asserts that the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

petition did not state or explain ‘‘why 

the name West Sonoma Coast is 

applicable or appropriate for the 

existing approved Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA which * * * has not itself even 

been known as the West Sonoma Coast 

AVA.’’ The comment included multiple 

images of wine bottles bearing ‘‘Fort 

Ross–Seaview’’ as an appellation of 

origin, as well as links to images and 

maps depicting the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA. The comment also notes that the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA has its own 

page on the Sonoma County Tourism 

Bureau website 40 and is identified ‘‘as 

a prominent and clearly delimited 

AVA’’ on a map of Sonoma County 

AVAs on the Sonoma County 

Winegrowers Association website.41

Finally, comment 51 states that there 

have been ‘‘a number of education and 

promotional seminars’’ exclusively 

about the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA, 

including two separate seminars 

entitled ‘‘Pinot’’ and ‘‘Diamonds in the 

Sky,’’ which were both held in 2016. 

The commenter suggests that these 

seminars further demonstrate that the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA is recognized 

independently of the proposed West 

Sonoma Coast AVA. 

ii. Supporting Comments 

Comment 67, submitted by the 

petitioner, was the only supporting 

comment to address the applicability of 

the proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

name to the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA. 

The petitioner notes that several 

vineyards and wineries within the Fort 

Ross–Seaview also identify themselves 

as being in a region known as ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast.’’ For example, the Hirsch 

Vineyards website states, ‘‘The Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA was granted official 

status in 2012, although the oldest 

plantings, including Hirsch, date from 

the 1970s, making it the oldest grapegrowing region on the West Sonoma 

Coast.’’ 42 The Red Car Wines website 

states, ‘‘The coastal ridgetop vineyards 

in the West Sonoma Coast are situated 

in one of the most dramatically 

beautiful places in California.’’ 43

Comment 67 also states that several 

wineries and vineyards within the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA are members of the 

West Sonoma Coast Vintners, indicating 

that they also choose to associate their 

businesses with the region known as 

‘‘West Sonoma Coast.’’ Members 

include Failla Wines, Flowers Winery & 

Vineyards, Hirsch Vineyards, Red Car 

Wines, and Wayfarer. Comment 67 also 

notes that Fort Ross Vineyards was a 

member of the association until 2018. 

Finally, the comment notes that the 

2018 West of the West Festival, which 

celebrates wines from the West Sonoma 

Coast region, featured wines from Failla 

Wines, Flowers Vineyards & Winery, 

Fort Ross Vineyards, Hirsch Vineyards, 

Red Car Wines, and Wayfarer, which are 

all located within the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA. The petitioner therefore 

illustrates the ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ 

name includes wineries and vineyards 

within the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA. 

However, he continues by saying, 

‘‘Given the widespread usage of the 

name Fort Ross–Seaview AVA, as 

presented by Mr. Schwartz and Mr. 

Schoenfeld [in comment 51], there 

should be little concern that the West 

Sonoma Coast AVA would have any 

impact on the recognition of Fort Ross– 

Seaview as a place of wine origin.’’ 

iii. TTB Response 

After reviewing the comments, TTB 

agrees that there is widespread 

recognition of the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA name. However, TTB also believes 

the petition and the additional 

information provided by petitioner in 

comment 67 demonstrate there is 

sufficient evidence that the Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA is considered to be within 

a larger region known as the ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast.’’ Therefore, TTB does 

not believe it would be misleading or 

inappropriate to allow winemakers in 

the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA the option 

of labeling and marketing their wines 

using ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ as an 

appellation of origin. 

TTB notes that establishment of the 

proposed West Sonoma Coast AVA 

would not prevent any label holder from 

using ‘‘Fort Ross–Seaview’’ as an 

appellation of origin on their wines, nor 

would they be required to use ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast’’ as an appellation of 

origin. However, winemakers in the Fort 

Ross–Seaview AVA would have the 

option of using the West Sonoma Coast 

AVA name on their labels and 

marketing material, just as they 

currently have the option to use 

‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ or ‘‘North Coast.’’ 

Additionally, wine makers and grape 

growers within the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA could continue to have a separate 

association for its industry members, as 

well as have separate festivals, 

seminars, and promotional events 

related to the Fort Ross–Seaview AVA. 

IV. TTB Determination 

After careful review of the petition 

and the comments received in response 

to Notice No. 177, TTB finds that the 

evidence provided by the petitioner 

supports the establishment of the West 

Sonoma Coast AVA. Notwithstanding 

the arguments of those who oppose the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31180 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

AVA, the petitioners’ request for 

approval of the proposed West Sonoma 

Coast AVA satisfied all of the regulatory 

criteria needed for the approval of a new 

AVA. Accordingly, under the authority 

of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, and 

parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations, 

TTB establishes the ‘‘West Sonoma 

Coast’’ AVA in Sonoma County, 

California, effective 30 days from the 

publication date of this document. 

TTB has also determined that the 

West Sonoma Coast AVA will remain 

part of the established Sonoma Coast 

AVA and North Coast AVA. As 

discussed in Notice No. 177, the West 

Sonoma Coast AVA shares some broad 

characteristics with the both established 

AVAs. For example, all three AVAs 

have temperatures that are moderated 

by marine air and fog. However, the 

West Sonoma Coast AVA is located 

within the portion of Sonoma County 

that experiences the highest degree of 

maritime influence. Additionally, 

because it is a smaller region, the West 

Sonoma Coast AVA is more uniform in 

its soils and topography than both the 

larger Sonoma Coast AVA and the 

multi-county North Coast AVA. 

Finally, TTB has determined that the 

Fort Ross–Seaview AVA will remain a 

part of the West Sonoma Coast AVA 

because the two AVAs share a similar 

geology, topography, and maritimeinfluenced climate. The Fort Ross– 

Seaview AVA is still distinguishable 

from the West Sonoma Coast AVA 

because its elevations are primarily 

above the fog line, whereas the West 

Sonoma Coast AVA also contains 

elevations within and below the fog 

line. However, the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA still benefits from the cooling 

influence of the marine fog and breezes, 

as does the West Sonoma Coast AVA. 

V. Boundary Description 

See the narrative description of the 

boundary of the West Sonoma Coast 

AVA in the regulatory text published at 

the end of this final rule. 

VI. Maps 

The petitioner provided the required 

maps, and they are listed below in the 

regulatory text. You may also view the 

West Sonoma Coast AVA boundary on 

the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB 

website, at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

ava-map-explorer. 

VII. Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. For a 

wine to be labeled with an AVA name 

or with a brand name that includes an 

AVA name, at least 85 percent of the 

wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name, and the wine must meet the 

other conditions listed in 27 CFR 

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

labeling with an AVA name and that 

name appears in the brand name, then 

the label is not in compliance and the 

bottler must change the brand name and 

obtain approval of a new label. 

Similarly, if the AVA name appears in 

another reference on the label in a 

misleading manner, the bottler would 

have to obtain approval of a new label. 

Different rules apply if a wine has a 

brand name containing an AVA name 

that was used as a brand name on a 

label approved before July 7, 1986. See 

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

With the establishment of this AVA, 

its name, ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ will be 

recognized as a name of viticultural 

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

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

text of the regulation clarifies this point. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using the 

name ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ in a brand 

name, including a trademark, or in 

another label reference as to the origin 

of the wine, will have to ensure that the 

product is eligible to use the AVA name 

as an appellation of origin. TTB notes 

that the term ‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ already 

has viticultural significance as it is the 

name of an established AVA. However, 

because the West Sonoma Coast AVA is 

located within the Sonoma Coast AVA, 

the establishment of this new AVA will 

have no effect on the use of the term 

‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ on wine labels. 

The establishment of the West 

Sonoma Coast AVA will not affect any 

existing AVA, and any bottlers using 

‘‘North Coast,’’ ‘‘Sonoma Coast,’’ or 

‘‘Fort Ross–Seaview’’ as an appellation 

of origin or in a brand name for wines 

made from grapes grown within these 

AVAs will not be affected by the 

establishment of this new AVA. The 

establishment of the West Sonoma Coast 

AVA will allow vintners to use ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast,’’ ‘‘Sonoma Coast,’’ and 

‘‘North Coast’’ as appellations of origin 

for wines made primarily from grapes 

grown within the West Sonoma Coast 

AVA if the wines meet the eligibility 

requirements for the appellation. 

Additionally, any bottlers using ‘‘Fort 

Ross–Seaview’’ as an appellation of 

origin for wines made primarily from 

grapes grown in the Fort Ross–Seaview 

AVA will be able to use ‘‘Fort Ross– 

Seaview,’’ ‘‘Sonoma Coast,’’ ‘‘North 

Coast,’’ and ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ as 

appellations of origin of their wines. 

Bottlers who wish to label their wines 

with ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ as an 

appellation of origin must obtain a new 

Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) for 

the label, even if the currently approved 

label already contains another AVA 

appellation of origin. Please do not 

submit COLA requests to TTB before the 

date shown in the DATES section of this 

document or your request will be 

rejected. 

VIII. Regulatory Analysis and Notices 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

TTB certifies that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The regulation imposes no new 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of an AVA name 

would be the result of a proprietor’s 

efforts and consumer acceptance of 

wines from that area. Therefore, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

B. Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

as defined by Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30, 1993. Therefore, no 

regulatory assessment is required. 

IX. Drafting Information 

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division drafted this final 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

The Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter 

I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as 

follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

■ 2. Subpart C is amended by adding 

§ 9.283 to read as follows: 

§ 9.283 West Sonoma Coast. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘West 

Sonoma Coast’’. For purposes of part 4 

of this chapter, ‘‘West Sonoma Coast’’ is 

a term of viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The 14 United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the West 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31181 

Sonoma Coast viticultural area are 

titled: 

(1) McGuire Ridge, California, 1991 

(provisional edition); 

(2) Stewarts Point, California, 1978; 

(3) Annapolis, California, 1977; 

(4) Tombs Creek, California, 1978; 

(5) Fort Ross, California, 1998; 

(6) Cazadero, California, 1998; 

(7) Duncans Mills, California, 1979; 

(8) Camp Meeker, California, 1995; 

(9) Valley Ford, California, 1954; 

photorevised 1971; 

(10) Two Rock, California, 1954; 

photorevised 1971; 

(11) Bodega Head, California, 1972; 

(12) Arched Rock, California, 1977; 

(13) Plantation, California, 1977; and 

(14) Gualala, California, 1998. 

(c) Boundary. The West Sonoma Coast 

viticultural area is located in Sonoma 

County, California. The boundary of the 

West Sonoma Coast viticultural area is 

as described as follows: 

(1) The beginning point is on the 

McGuire Ridge map at the intersection 

of the Sonoma County/Mendocino 

County boundary and the northwest 

corner of section 29, T11N/R14W. From 

the beginning point, proceed southeast 

in a straight line for 0.4 mile to an 

unnamed hilltop with a marked 

elevation of 820 feet in section 29, 

T11N/R14W; then 

(2) Proceed southeast in a straight line 

for 1.4 miles to the intersection of the 

eastern boundary of section 32 and the 

800-foot elevation contour, T11N/R14W; 

then 

(3) Proceed southeast along the 800- 

foot elevation contour for 3.1 miles, 

crossing onto the Stewarts Point map, to 

its intersection with the northern 

boundary of section 3, T10N/R14W; 

then 

(4) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 3 and then along 

the northern boundary of section 2 for 

a total of 0.8 mile to the intersection of 

the northern boundary of section 2 and 

the 600-foot elevation contour, T10N, 

R14W; then 

(5) Proceed generally southeast along 

the 600-foot elevation contour for 3.3 

miles, crossing onto the Annapolis map, 

to its intersection with the northern 

boundary of section 12, T10N/R14W; 

then 

(6) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 12, T10N/R14W, for 

0.1 mile to its intersection with the 600- 

foot elevation contour; then 

(7) Proceed north then generally east 

along the meandering 600-foot elevation 

contour for 4.8 miles to its sixth 

intersection with the northern boundary 

of section 7, T10N/R13W; then 

(8) Continue northeasterly along the 

600-ft elevation contour for an 

additional 3 miles to its intersection 

with Springs Creek in section 5, T10N/ 

R13W; then 

(9) Proceed southeasterly along 

Springs Creek for 1 mile to its 

intersection with the northern boundary 

of section 9, T10N/R13W; then 

(10) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 9 for 0.42 mile to 

its intersection with an unnamed, 

intermittent tributary of Grasshopper 

Creek; then 

(11) Proceed southwest along the 

unnamed, intermittent tributary of 

Grasshopper Creek for 0.63 mile to its 

intersection with the main stem of 

Grasshopper Creek in section 9, T10N/ 

R13W; then 

(12) Proceed generally west along the 

main stem of Grasshopper Creek to its 

intersection with the eastern boundary 

of section 7, T10N/R13W; then 

(13) Proceed south along the eastern 

boundary of section 7 for 0.17 mile; then 

(14) Proceed in a straight line 

southeast for 1.6 miles to the 

intersection of the eastern boundary of 

section 17, T10N/R13W, and the 800- 

foot elevation contour; then 

(15) Proceed southeast along the 800- 

foot elevation contour for 2.6 miles to its 

intersection with an unnamed, 

unimproved road near the 862-foot 

benchmark in section 21, T10N/R13W; 

then 

(16) Proceed southeast in a straight 

line for 0.2 mile to the intersection of 

the 600-foot elevation contour and an 

intermittent stream in section 28, T10N/ 

R13W; then 

(17) Proceed south along the 600-foot 

elevation contour for 1.7 miles to its 

intersection with the eastern boundary 

of section 33, T10N/R13W; then 

(18) Proceed southeast in a straight 

line for 0.5 mile to the intersection of an 

unnamed light-duty road known locally 

as Skaggs Springs Road and an 

unnamed, unimproved road near the 

Mendosoma Fire Station in section 34, 

T10N/R13W; then 

(19) Proceed southeast along the 

unnamed, unimproved road for total of 

5.9 miles as it follows Skyline Ridge and 

crosses onto the Tombs Creek map, back 

onto the Annapolis map, then back on 

to the Tombs Creek map, to the second 

intersection of the road with the 1,200- 

foot elevation contour in section 13, 

T9N/R13W; then 

(20) Proceed southeast along the 

1,200-foot elevation contour for 0.6 mile 

to the intersection with Allen Creek in 

section 18, T9N/R12W; then 

(21) Proceed north along Allen Creek 

for 0.2 mile to the intersection with the 

920-foot elevation contour in section 18, 

T9N/R12W; then 

(22) Proceed east and then southeast 

along the meandering 920-foot elevation 

contour, crossing onto the Fort Ross 

map, then onto the Tombs Creek map, 

and then back onto the Fort Ross map, 

to the intersection of the elevation 

contour with Jim Creek in section 21, 

T9N/R12W; then 

(23) Proceed southeast along Jim 

Creek for 0.7 mile to the intersection of 

the creek with the northern boundary of 

section 27, T9N, R12W; then 

(24) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 27 for 0.5 mile to 

the northeast corner of section 27; then 

(25) Proceed south along the eastern 

boundaries of sections 27, 34, 3, 10, 15, 

and 22 for 5.1 miles to the intersection 

of the eastern boundary of section 22 

and Fort Ross Road, T9N/R12W; then 

(26) Proceed east along Fort Ross 

Road for approximately 262 feet to the 

intersection of the road with the middle 

branch of Russian Gulch Creek in 

section 23, T8N/R12W; then 

(27) Proceed south along the middle 

branch of Russian Gulch Creek for 1.2 

miles to the intersection with the 920- 

foot elevation contour in section 26, 

T8N/R12W; then 

(28) Proceed southeast in a straight 

line for 2 miles, crossing onto the 

Cazadero map, to the summit of Pole 

Mountain in section 30, T8N/R11W; 

then 

(29) Proceed southeast in a straight 

line for 4.7 miles, crossing onto the 

Duncans Mills map, to the confluence of 

Austin Creek and the Russian River, 

T7N/R11W; then 

(30) Proceed generally east (upstream) 

along the Russian River for 3.1 miles to 

the intersection of the Russian River and 

the Bohemian Highway in section 7, 

T7N/R10W; then 

(31) Proceed southeast along the 

Bohemian Highway for a total of 10.1 

miles, crossing onto the Camp Meeker 

map and through the towns of Camp 

Meeker and Occidental, then crossing 

onto the Valley Ford map and through 

the town of Freestone, to the 

intersection of the Bohemian Highway 

and an unnamed medium-duty road 

known locally as Bodega Road near 

benchmark (BM) 214 in section 12, 

T6N/R10W; then 

(32) Proceed northeast along Bodega 

Road for 0.9 mile, crossing onto the 

Camp Meeker map, to the intersection of 

the road with an unnamed light-duty 

road known locally as Barnett Valley 

Road north of the marked 486-foot 

elevation point in the Can ̃ ada de Jonive 

land grant, T6N/R10W; then 

(33) Proceed south then east along 

Barnett Valley Road for 2.2 miles, 

crossing onto the Valley Ford map and 

then onto the Two Rock map, to the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
31182 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

intersection of Bennett Valley Road with 

Burnside Road in section 17, T6N/R9W; 

then 

(34) Proceed southeast along Burnside 

Road for 3.2 miles to its intersection 

with the 400-foot elevation contour just 

north of an unnamed light duty road 

known locally as Bloomfield Road in 

the Can ̃ ada de Pogolimi land grant, 

T5N/R9W; then 

(35) Proceed west along the 400-foot 

elevation contour for 6.7 miles, crossing 

onto the Valley Ford map, to the 

intersection of the elevation contour 

with an unimproved road, Can ̃ ada de 

Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R9W; then 

(36) Proceed northwest then 

southwest along the unnamed, 

unimproved road for 0.9 mile to its 

terminus, Can ̃ ada de Pogolimi land 

grant, T6N/R9W; then 

(37) Proceed northwest in a straight 

line for 0.1 mile to the marked 448-foot 

summit of an unnamed hilltop, Can ̃ ada 

de Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; 

then 

(38) Proceed northwest in a straight 

line for 0.6 mile to the 61-foot 

benchmark along an unnamed 

secondary highway known locally as 

Freestone Valley Ford Road, Can ̃ ada de 

Pogolimi land grant, T6N/R10W; then 

(39) Proceed west-northwest in a 

straight line for 0.8 mile to VABM 724 

in the Estero Americano land grant, 

T6N/R10W; then 

(40) Proceed west in a straight line for 

1.0 mile to the intersection of Salmon 

Creek and an intermittent stream, Estero 

Americano land grant, T6N/R10W; then 

(41) Proceed west (downstream) along 

Salmon Creek for 9.6 miles, crossing 

onto the Bodega Head map, to the 

mouth of the creek at the Pacific Ocean; 

then 

(42) Proceed north along the Pacific 

coastline for 51.4 miles, crossing over 

the Duncan Mills, Arched Rock, Fort 

Ross, Plantation, and Stewarts Point 

maps and onto the Gualala map to the 

intersection of the coastline with the 

Sonoma County/Mendocino County 

line; then 

(43) Proceed east along the Sonoma 

County/Mendocino County line for 5.6 

miles, crossing onto the McGuire Ridge 

map, and returning to the beginning 

point, T11N, R14W. 

Signed: May 11, 2022. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: May 11, 2022. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2022–10590 Filed 5–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2022–0221] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Rancocas Creek, Burlington County, 

NJ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the US Route 543 

(Riverside-Delanco) Bridge across 

Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3, at Burlington 

County, NJ. This deviation will test a 

change to the drawbridge operation 

schedule to determine whether a 

permanent change to the schedule is 

needed. The Coast Guard is seeking 

comments from the public regarding 

these proposed changes. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

May 23, 2022 through 7:59 p.m. on 

October 15, 2022. For the purpose of 

enforcement, actual notice will be used 

from 1 p.m. on May 4, 2022, until May 

23, 2022. Comments and related 

material must reach the Coast Guard on 

or before August 1, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0221 using Federal Decision 

Making Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this test 

deviation, call or email Mr. Mickey D. 

Sanders, Fifth Coast Guard District 

(dpb); telephone (757) 398–6587, email 

Mickey.D.Sanders2@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis 

The purpose of the deviation is to test 

the seasonal operating regulation of the 

US Route 543 (Riverside-Delanco) 

Bridge across Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3, 

at Burlington County, NJ. The US 543 

(Riverside-Delanco) Bridge across 

Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3, at Burlington 

County, NJ, has a vertical clearance of 

4 feet above mean high water in the 

closed-to-navigation position. The 

bridge currently operates under 33 CFR 

117.745(b). 

The Burlington County Bridge 

Commission who owns and operates the 

bridge has requested this change in the 

operation schedule to reduce the 

number of bridge openings during offpeak hours, while providing for the 

reasonable needs of navigation. The 

Rancocas Creek is used predominately 

by recreational vessels and pleasure 

crafts. 

The bridge will be maintained in the 

closed-to-navigation position from 7 

a.m. to 3 p.m., and from 8 p.m. to 11 

p.m., Monday through Friday, from 7 

a.m. to 1 p.m., and from 8 p.m. to 11 

p.m., Saturday and Sunday, and from 11 

p.m. to 7 a.m., daily, from May 4, 2022, 

through October 15, 2022. 

The three-year, monthly average 

number of bridge openings from 7 a.m. 

to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 7 

a.m. to 1 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, 

and from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., daily, as 

drawn from the data contained in the 

bridge tender logs, is presented below. 

April to October 

(2018, 2019 and 2020) 

Average 

monthly 

openings 

Monday–Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m .. 4 

Saturday & Sunday, 7 a.m. to 1 

p.m ............................................ 2 

Daily, 8 p.m. to 11 p.m ................. 7 

Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed-to-navigation 

position may do so at any time. The 

bridge will be able to open in case of an 

emergency and there is no immediate 

alternate route for vessels to pass. The 

Coast Guard will also inform the users 

of the waterways through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

change in operating schedule for the 

bridge so that vessel operators can 

arrange their transits to minimize any 

impact caused by the test deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to normal 

operation at the end of the effective 

period of this test deviation. This 

deviation is authorized under 33 CFR 

117.35. 

II. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1