[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31164-31182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10590]


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

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 grape-growing region as an AVA. 
Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards 
for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an 
AVA must include the following:
    <bullet> Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is 
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
    <bullet> An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of 
the proposed AVA;
    <bullet> A narrative description of the features of the proposed 
AVA 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;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of 
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
    <bullet> A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA 
boundary based on USGS map markings.

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

[[Page 31165]]

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

    \1\ See 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.).
    \2\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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

[[Page 31166]]

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 Sec.  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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ McIntyre, Dave. ``Why American wine labels aren't as 
specific as they could be,'' Washington Post (December 31, 2016).
    \4\ McCoy, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ Boone, Virginia. ``Wines Way Out West.'' Press Democrat 
(July 21, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \6\ See Exhibit A-10 to comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Do[ntilde]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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Boone, Virginie. ``Way Out on the West Sonoma Coast,'' Wine 
Enthusiast Magazine (June 13, 2016).
    \8\ http://www.lazybearsf.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/20190129-Beverage-Menu.pdf, pages 35, 67, and 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 31167]]

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

    \9\ The name evidence is included in Exhibit J to the petition 
in Docket TTB-2018-0008 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  
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-
mile-long 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ McInerney, Jay. ``West Sonoma Coast Wines are on the 
Rise,'' The Wall Street Journal (July 18, 2013).
    \11\ Brown, Elaine Chukan. ``Sonoma's Far Coast: A haven for 
pinot noir,'' Wines and Spirits (August 31, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 31168]]

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 
Sec.  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 marine-influenced 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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, Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exhibit B-1 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 31169]]

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

    \14\ See Vossen, Paul, Sonoma County Climatic Zones, University 
of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma County, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 low-elevation 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The 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.
    \16\ See Exhibit A-6 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \17\ See Exhibit D-8 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \18\ See Exhibit B-2 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \19\ See Exhibit A-4 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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

[[Page 31170]]

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

    \21\ See Exhibit B-1 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    \22\ On days when the actual maximum temperature exceeds the cap 
temperature, the cap temperature is used in place of the maximum 
temperature when calculating GDDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \23\ Winkler, A.J., et al. General Viticulture, University of 
California Press, 1962, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 31171]]

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

    \24\ See Exhibit H of the petition in docket TTB-2018-2008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    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.

[[Page 31172]]

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 Ross-Seaview 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 31173]]

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

    \26\ See Exhibit A-2 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \27\ See Attachment B of comment 67 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    \28\ See Attachment A of comment 67 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2\1/2\ 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 ``m[eacute]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Exhibit C of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    \30\ See Exhibit A-8 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 31174]]

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

    \31\ See Attachment G of comment 67 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 m[eacute]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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Exhibit A-9 to comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    \33\ https://www.ttb.gov/wine/p51204_ava_manual.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \34\ See Exhibit A-1 to comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  
9.12(a)(2) of the TTB regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Exhibits D-1 through D-7 of comment 51 in docket TTB-
2018-0008 at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \36\ See Exhibit D-2 of comment 51 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 less-ripe 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.

[[Page 31176]]

    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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Figure 10 to comment 55 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    \38\ See Figure 11 of comment 55 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    \39\ See Figure 13 of comment 55 in docket TTB-2018-0008 at 
https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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

[[Page 31177]]

erroneous. Based on information provided in comment 51, TTB has re-
evaluated 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

[[Page 31178]]

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 marine-influenced 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

[[Page 31179]]

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 so-called ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ https://www.sonomacounty.com/articles/fort-ross-seaview-wine-region-and-appellation.
    \41\ https://sonomawinegrape.org/about/sonoma-county-terroir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 grape-growing 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ https://www.hirschvineyards.com/The-Site/West-Sonoma-Coast.
    \43\ https://redcarwine.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 31180]]

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 maritime-influenced 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 Sec.  
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

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

    Authority:  27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec.  9.283 to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Ca[ntilde]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

[[Page 31182]]

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 
Ca[ntilde]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, Ca[ntilde]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, Ca[ntilde]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, Ca[ntilde]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, Ca[ntilde]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