Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49123 

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986 divided H–2 workers into two 

categories: Temporary workers to 

perform agricultural labor or services 

(H–2A), and all other temporary workers 

(H–2B). In 1990, Congress attached a 

limitation on the number of H–2B 

workers, but otherwise the program has 

not significantly changed to 

accommodate employers’ needs or to 

offer worker protections. After 

consulting with DOL and the 

Department of State, and reviewing the 

definitions and procedures used to 

regulate the H–2B nonagricultural 

temporary worker program, USCIS 

determined that the H–2B process 

should be modified to reduce 

unnecessary burdens that hinder 

petitioning employers’ ability to 

effectively use this visa category. The 

proposed rule was published on January 

27, 2005, with its intent being to 

increase efficiency in the program by 

removing existing regulatory barriers. 70 

FR 3984. 

II. Changes Contained in the Proposed 

Rule 

The most significant proposed change 

was a migration to a one-stop 

attestation-based process whereby most 

U.S. employers seeking H–2B temporary 

workers would only be required to file 

one application, the Form I–129, 

Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, 

with USCIS. The proposal would have 

reduced the paper-based application 

process by requiring that most Form I–

129 petitions be submitted to USCIS 

electronically through e-filing. The 

proposal would also have required efiled petitions to be filed not more than 

60 days in advance of the employment 

need. The proposed rule also would 

have precluded agents from filing H–2B 

petitions on behalf of the actual H–2B 

employer. Finally, the proposed rule 

included additional changes to ensure 

the integrity of the program through 

enforcement mechanisms. 

III. Comments Received on the 

Proposed Rule 

USCIS received 125 comments on the 

proposed rule during the 60-day 

comment period. The majority of the 

commenters were opposed to many 

changes proposed in the rule. The 

comments are summarized as follows: 

• There were a significant number of 

negative comments regarding the 

proposal to create a one-stop attestationbased process. Some commenters stated 

that the existing labor certification 

process should remain with DOL 

because DOL, not USCIS, is directly 

charged with the protection of U.S. 

workers. Some also expressed concern 

that this change would lead to 

widespread fraud and 

misrepresentation. 

A considerable number of 

commenters were in opposition to the 

proposed change requiring that 

petitioners e-file a petition within 60 

days in advance of the employment 

need. Some raised concern that many 

employers are not necessarily wellversed in the access and use of the 

Internet. 

• A significant number of comments 

were opposed to the proposal to 

eliminate agents. Many commenters 

stressed that agents perform a vital 

function in the H–2B filing process on 

behalf of the employers who are not 

conversant with the applicable laws and 

regulations related to the H–2B program. 

• The majority of the comments 

stressed that the proposed changes 

would result in decreased protections 

for U.S. workers and the likely 

proliferation of fraud within the 

program. 

Based upon a review of the 

rulemaking record as a whole, DHS has 

decided to withdraw the January 27, 

2005, proposed rule and terminate the 

associated proposed rulemaking action. 

DHS, therefore, will not publish specific 

responses to each comment. 

IV. Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule 

For the reasons described in this 

document, DHS is withdrawing the 

proposed rule published on January 27, 

2005 (FR Doc. 05–1240, 70 FR 3984). 

Dated: August 11, 2008. 

Michael Chertoff, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–19322 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–97–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Notice No. 90; Docket No. TTB–2008–0009] 

RIN 1513–AB57 

Proposed Expansions of the Russian 

River Valley and Northern Sonoma 

Viticultural Areas (2008R–031P) 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau proposes to expand 

the Russian River Valley and Northern 

Sonoma American viticultural areas in 

Sonoma County, California. The Russian 

River Valley viticultural area proposed 

expansion of 14,044 acres would 

increase the size of that viticultural area 

to 169,028 acres. The Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area proposed expansion of 

approximately 44,244 acres would 

increase the size of that viticultural area 

to 394,088 acres. We designate 

viticultural areas to allow vintners to 

better describe the origin of their wines 

and to allow consumers to better 

identify wines they may purchase. We 

invite comments on this proposed 

change to our regulations. 

DATES: We must receive written 

comments on or before October 20, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments to 

any of the following addresses: 

• http://www.regulations.gov (via the 

online comment form for this notice as 

posted within Docket No. TTB–2008–

0009 at ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal 

e-rulemaking portal); or 

• Director, Regulations and Rulings 

Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, 

Washington, DC 20044–4412. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this notice for specific instructions and 

requirements for submitting comments, 

and for information on how to request 

a public hearing. 

You may view copies of this notice, 

selected supporting materials, and any 

comments we receive about this 

proposal at http://www.regulations.gov 

within Docket No. TTB–2008–0009. A 

link to that docket is posted on the TTB 

Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice 

No. 90. You also may view copies of this 

notice, all related petitions, maps or 

other supporting materials, and any 

comments we receive about this 

proposal by appointment at the TTB 

Information Resource Center, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 

Please call 202–927–2400 to make an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Berry, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, P.O. Box 18152, 

Roanoke, VA 24014; telephone (540) 

344–9333. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

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

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

requires that these regulations, among 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
49124 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 regulations 

promulgated under the FAA Act. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) allows the establishment of 

definitive viticultural areas and 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) contains the 

list of approved viticultural areas. 

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 

distinguishable by geographical 

features, the boundaries of which have 

been recognized and defined in part 9 

of the regulations. These designations 

allow vintners and consumers to 

attribute a given quality, reputation, or 

other characteristic of a wine made from 

grapes grown in an area to its 

geographic origin. The establishment of 

viticultural areas allows vintners to 

describe more accurately the origin of 

their wines to consumers and helps 

consumers to identify wines they may 

purchase. Establishment of a viticultural 

area is neither an approval nor an 

endorsement by TTB of the wine 

produced in that area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations outlines the procedure for 

proposing an American viticultural area 

and provides that any interested party 

may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area. 

Petitioners may use the same procedure 

to request changes involving existing 

viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the 

TTB regulations requires the petition to 

include—

• Evidence that the proposed 

viticultural area is locally and/or 

nationally known by the name specified 

in the petition; 

• Historical or current evidence that 

supports setting the boundary of the 

proposed viticultural area as the 

petition specifies; 

• Evidence relating to the 

geographical features, such as climate, 

soils, elevation, and physical features 

that distinguish the proposed 

viticultural area from surrounding areas; 

• A description of the specific 

boundary of the proposed viticultural 

area, based on features found on United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; 

and 

• A copy of the appropriate USGS 

map(s) with the proposed viticultural 

area’s boundary prominently marked. 

Russian River Valley Expansion 

Petition 

Gallo Family Vineyards submitted a 

petition proposing a 14,044-acre 

expansion of the established Russian 

River Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 

9.66). The proposed expansion would 

increase the established viticultural 

area’s acreage by approximately 9 

percent, to 169,028 acres. The petitioner 

explains that approximately 550 acres of 

the proposed expansion area were 

planted to grapes at the time of this 

petition. The petitioner’s Two Rock 

Ranch Vineyard, with 350 acres planted 

to grapes, lies near the southern end of 

the proposed expansion area. 

The Russian River Valley viticultural 

area is located approximately 50 miles 

north of San Francisco in central 

Sonoma County, California. The 

viticultural area was originally 

established by Treasury Decision (T.D.) 

ATF–159, published in the Federal 

Register (48 FR 48813) on October 21, 

1983. It was expanded by 767 acres in 

T.D. TTB–7, published in the Federal 

Register (68 FR 67370) on December 2, 

2003, and again by 30,200 acres in T.D. 

TTB–32, published in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 53299) on September 8, 

2005. Although T.D. TTB–32 states that 

after the 2005 expansion the viticultural 

area covered 126,600 acres, the current 

petition provides information updating 

the present size of the viticultural area 

to a total of 154,984 acres. 

The current Russian River Valley 

viticultural area, with the exception of 

its southern tip, lies within the Northern 

Sonoma viticultural area (27 CFR 9.70). 

The Northern Sonoma viticultural area, 

in turn, lies largely within the Sonoma 

Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.116). 

The Northern Sonoma and Sonoma 

Coast viticultural areas are both entirely 

within the North Coast viticultural area 

(27 CFR 9.30). 

The current Russian River Valley 

viticultural area also entirely 

encompasses two smaller viticultural 

areas—in its northeastern corner, the 

Chalk Hill viticultural area (27 CFR 

9.52), and in the southwest, the Green 

Valley of Russian River Valley 

viticultural area (27 CFR 9.57). 

According to the petition, the 

proposed expansion would extend the 

current viticultural area boundary south 

and east, encompassing land just west of 

the cities of Rohnert Park and Cotati. 

The proposed expansion area lies 

within the Sonoma Coast and North 

Coast viticultural areas but not within 

the Northern Sonoma viticultural area. 

According to the petition, the proposed 

expansion area lies almost entirely 

within the Russian River Valley 

watershed, is historically part of the 

Russian River Valley, and shares all the 

significant distinguishing features of the 

Russian River Valley viticultural area. 

Name Evidence 

The petitioner states that the 

proposed expansion area is widely 

recognized as part of the Russian River 

watershed, a key criterion cited in past 

rulemaking documents regarding the 

existing viticultural area. T.D. ATF–159 

states that the Russian River Valley 

viticultural area ‘‘includes those areas 

through which flow the Russian River or 

some of its tributaries * * *.’’ Moreover, 

the petitioner contends that before the 

establishment of the current viticultural 

area boundary, the proposed expansion 

area was commonly considered part of 

the Russian River Valley. 

The petitioner includes several pieces 

of evidence showing the expansion 

area’s inclusion in the Russian River 

watershed. A submitted map shows that 

almost all the proposed expansion area 

lies within the Russian River watershed 

(see ‘‘The California Interagency 

Watershed Map of 1999,’’ published by 

the California Resources Agency, 

updated 2004). The petitioner notes that 

drainage is through the Laguna de Santa 

Rosa waterway beginning near the east 

side of the proposed expansion area and 

flowing west and north through the 

current viticultural area. Thus, the 

waterway provides a common 

connection between the two areas. 

The petitioner includes an 

informational brochure published by the 

Russian River Watershed Association 

(RRWA), an association of local 

governments and districts that 

coordinates regional programs to protect 

or improve the quality of the Russian 

River watershed. A map in the brochure 

shows that the watershed comprises 

both the current viticultural area and 

the area covered by the proposed 

expansion. 

The petitioner submits a letter in 

which the RRWA asks the California 

Department of Transportation to place a 

sign marking the southern boundary of 

the Russian River watershed at a point 

on northbound Highway 101 near the 

City of Cotati in Sonoma County, 

California. This point is on the 

southeastern boundary of the proposed 

expansion area. The petitioner notes 

that the State has installed the requested 

sign and a sign at another point on the 

southern boundary of the proposed 

expansion area. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49125 

Also submitted with the petition is 

2002 water assessment data published 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. This data includes the 

expansion area in its assessment of the 

Russian River watershed. Finally, the 

petitioner includes a Russian River 

Valley area tourism map that 

encompasses the proposed expansion 

area (see ‘‘Russian River Map,’’ (http:// 

russianrivertravel.com/)). 

Several documents relating to the 

agricultural and economic history of 

Sonoma County were also submitted by 

the petitioner. The petitioner states that 

they show that the proposed expansion 

area and the current viticultural area 

share a history of grape growing. For 

example, an 1893 survey compares the 

yields of individual grape growers in the 

established viticultural area with those 

of growers in the proposed expansion 

area (see ‘‘History of the Sonoma 

Viticultural District,’’ by Ernest P. 

Peninou, Nomis Press, 1998). The 

petitioner asserts that this document 

clearly shows that growers in the two 

areas grew similar grape varieties under 

similar growing conditions with similar 

yields. 

A letter from Robert Theiller 

submitted with the petition describes 

the family-owned Xavier Theiller 

Winery. The winery, now defunct, 

operated in the proposed expansion area 

from 1904 to 1938. According to Mr. 

Theiller, it crushed grapes from both the 

area encompassed by the current 

Russian River Valley viticultural area 

and the area covered by the proposed 

expansion. The letter specifically states 

that ‘‘* * * people involved in grape 

growing and other agriculture in the 

area of the winery knew that [the 

proposed expansion area] was part of 

the Russian River Valley.’’

The petition also includes a letter 

from wine historian William F. Heintz. 

Mr. Heintz is the author of ‘‘Wine and 

Viticulture History of the Region Known 

as the Russian River Appellation’’

(Russian River Valley Winegrowers, 

1999). In his letter, Mr. Heintz writes: 

I agree with the observation in your 

petition that the proposed expansion area 

and the main part of the Russian River Valley 

viticultural area, which lies to the north, 

have historically been part of one region in 

terms of common climate and geographic 

features, settlement, and the development of 

agriculture and transportation. For these 

reasons, I have always considered the 

proposed expansion area and the area to the 

north that is in the current Russian River 

Valley viticultural area to belong together. In 

my opinion, the proposed expansion area is 

part of the same historical district as the 

existing Russian River Valley viticultural 

area. 

Boundary Evidence 

According to the petitioner, the 2005 

expansion created an artificial line for 

the southeast boundary. Proceeding 

south down the U.S. 101 corridor, it 

abruptly turns due west at Todd Road. 

Consequently, on a map, the Russian 

River Valley viticultural area appears to 

have had a ‘‘bite’’ taken out of its 

southeastern corner despite the fact that 

it and the proposed expansion area 

share common features of climate, soil, 

and watershed. 

The proposed expansion would 

change the southeastern boundary of the 

current Russian River Valley viticultural 

area. At a point where the current 

southern boundary now abruptly turns 

north, the proposed new boundary line 

would generally continue to follow the 

defining ridge on the southern flank of 

the Russian River watershed. It would 

turn north at U.S. 101, eventually 

meeting the southeast corner of the 

existing boundary, adding an area 

almost entirely within the Russian River 

watershed. 

Distinguishing Features 

Climate 

Past rulemakings regarding the 

Russian River Valley viticultural area 

have stated that coastal fog greatly 

affects the area’s climate. T.D. TTB–32 

at 70 FR 53298 states, for example, that 

‘‘Fog is the single most unifying and 

significant feature of the previously 

established Russian River Valley 

viticultural area.’’ The petitioner states 

that the proposed expansion area lies 

directly in the path of the fog that moves 

from the ocean into southern and 

central Sonoma County; thus, the same 

fog influences both the proposed 

expansion area and the current 

viticultural area. Consequently, there is 

no ‘‘fog line’’ dividing the current 

viticultural area and the proposed 

expansion area, according to the 

petitioner. 

The petitioner provides a report 

showing the effect of the fog on the 

climate of the current viticultural area 

and proposed expansion area (see 

‘‘Sonoma County Climatic Zones,’’ Paul 

Vossen, University of California 

Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma 

County, 1986 (http:// 

cesonoma.ucdavis.edu/)). The report 

describes the fog as passing through the 

Petaluma Gap and into the expansion 

area, as follows: 

The major climatic influence in Sonoma 

County is determined by the marine (ocean) 

air flow and the effect of the geography 

diverting that air flow. During an average 

summer there are many days when fog 

maintains a band of cold air all around the 

coastline and cool breezes blow a fog bank 

in through the Petaluma Gap northward 

toward Santa Rosa and northwestward 

toward Sebastopol. This fog bank is 

accompanied by a rapid decrease in 

temperature which can be as much as 50 °F. 

Additionally, the petitioner provides 

an online article delineating the 

presence of fog in the proposed 

expansion area (‘‘Fog Noir,’’ by Rod 

Smith, September/October 2005 at 

http://www.privateclubs.com/Archives/ 

2005-sept-oct/wine_fog-noir.htm. The 

article describes satellite images of fog 

moving through the Russian River 

Valley, as follows: 

Until recently everyone assumed that the 

Russian River itself drew the fog inland and 

distributed it over the terrain west of Santa 

Rosa. Supplemental fog, it was thought, also 

came in from the southwest over the marshy 

lowlands along the coast between Point 

Reyes and Bodega Bay—the so-called 

Petaluma Wind Gap. 

In fact, it now appears to be the other way 

around. A new generation of satellite 

photography, sensitive enough to pick up 

translucent layers of moist air near the 

ground, shows for the first time the 

movement of the fog throughout the Russian 

River Valley region. 

* * * * * 

In Bobbitt’s snapshot, the fog pours, 

literally pours, through the Petaluma Gap. 

The ocean dumps it ashore and the inland 

heat sink reels it in * * *. 

According to the petitioner, the 

proposed expansion area also has the 

same ‘‘coastal cool’’ climate as the 

current Russian River Valley viticultural 

area. T.D. ATF–159, T.D. TTB–7, and 

T.D. TTB–32 refer to the Winkler 

degree-day system, which classifies 

climatic regions for grape growing. In 

the Winkler system, heat accumulation 

is measured during the typical grapegrowing season from April to October. 

One degree day accumulates for each 

degree Fahrenheit that a day’s mean 

temperature is above 50 degrees, the 

minimum temperature required for 

grapevine growth (see ‘‘General 

Viticulture,’’ Albert J. Winkler, 

University of California Press, 1974). As 

noted in T.D. ATF–159, the Russian 

River Valley viticultural area is termed 

‘‘coastal cool’’ and has an annual range 

of 2,000 to 2,800 degree days. 

The petitioner concedes that the 

‘‘Sonoma County Climate Zones’’ report 

cited above would place most of the 

proposed expansion area and part of the 

2005 expansion area within the 

‘‘marine’’ zone, instead of the warmer 

coastal cool zone. However, the 

petitioner argues that at the time of the 

2005 expansion, TTB recognized that 

more current information had 

superseded the information in the 1986 

report. Further, the petitioner argues 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
49126 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

that climate information included in the 

petition and presented below shows that 

the proposed expansion area actually 

has a coastal cool climate. 

Using the Winkler system, the 

petitioner provides a table that includes 

a complete degree day data set for the 

April through October growing season at 

seven vineyards, including the 

petitioner’s Two Rock Ranch Vineyard 

in the southern part of the proposed 

expansion area. The table is reproduced 

below. 

AVERAGE GROWING SEASON 1983–2005 

[The 2005 expansion used 2001 climate data] 

Vineyard Annual degree 

days Establishment of area 

Osley West ..................................................................................................................................... 2,084 2005 expansion. 

Two Rock Ranch ............................................................................................................................ 2,227 Proposed expansion. 

Bloomfield ....................................................................................................................................... 2,332 2005 expansion. 

Laguna Ranch ................................................................................................................................ 2,403 1983 establishment. 

Osley East ...................................................................................................................................... 2,567 2005 expansion. 

MacMurray Ranch .......................................................................................................................... 2,601 1983 establishment. 

Le Carrefour .................................................................................................................................... 2,636 2005 expansion. 

The petitioner states that the table 

shows that all seven vineyards, 

including the Two Rock Ranch in the 

proposed expansion area, fall within the 

coastal cool climate range of 2,000 to 

2,800 annual degree days. The 

petitioner notes the consistency of the 

degree day data for the 1983 

establishment of the viticultural area, 

the 2005 expansion, and the current 

proposed expansion. The petitioner 

states that the degree day data in the 

table shows that the proposed 

expansion area has the same climate as 

the current Russian River Valley 

viticultural area. Further, the petitioner 

provides a raster map showing that 

annual average degree days in the 

proposed expansion area are within the 

same range as much of the existing 

viticultural area (see ‘‘Growing Degree 

Days’’ for Sonoma County (1951–80 

average), published by the Spatial 

Climate Analysis Service, Oregon State 

University (http:// 

www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/index.html)). 

The petitioner notes that the annual 

average number of hours between 70 

and 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the 

April through October growing season 

for 1996–98 at the Two Rock Ranch 

Vineyard was 940 hours. Based on the 

‘‘Sonoma County Climatic Zones’’ map, 

this average lies within the 800- to 1100- 

hour range that characterizes the coastal 

cool zone. The marine zone has fewer 

than 800 hours between 70 and 90 

degrees Fahrenheit during the growing 

season. 

The petitioner submits a report, 

written at the request of the petitioner, 

that includes a detailed analysis of the 

climate of the proposed expansion area. 

The petitioner requested expert 

commentary on the proposed expansion 

area and states that the report’s author, 

Patrick L. Shabram, geographic 

consultant, has extensive experience in 

Sonoma County viticulture. 

Mr. Shabram disputes the idea that 

the proposed expansion area is in a 

marine climate zone. Mr. Shabram cites 

three main factors in support of a 

determination that the climate zone of 

the proposed expansion area is not 

marine. First, successful viticulture 

would not be possible in a true marine 

zone because of insufficient solar 

radiation. Second, the proposed 

expansion area is well inland as 

compared to the rest of the marine zone; 

climatic conditions in the proposed 

expansion area would not be 

characteristic of a marine zone. Finally, 

Mr. Shabram states that the petitioner’s 

climate data (summarized above) 

‘‘* * * clearly demonstrates that the 

area should be classified as ‘Coastal 

Cool,’ rather than the Marine climate 

type.’’

Mr. Shabram provided the petitioner 

with a map that depicts all the proposed 

expansion area as belonging to the 

coastal cool zone (see ‘‘Revised Sonoma 

County Climatic Zones of the Russian 

River Valley Area,’’ by Patrick L. 

Shabram, 2007, based on ‘‘Sonoma 

County Climatic Zones’’ and ‘‘Revised 

Coastal Cool/Marine Climate Zones 

Boundary,’’ by Patrick L. Shabram). 

Topography and Elevation 

According to the petitioner, the 

southernmost portion of the proposed 

expansion area is on the ‘‘Merced Hills’’

of the Wilson Grove formation. These 

are gently rolling hills dominantly on 5 

to 30 percent slopes. The current 

Russian River Valley viticultural area 

does not encompass these hills; the 

proposed expansion area includes a 

portion of them. 

The northern portion of the proposed 

expansion area comprises the 

essentially flat Santa Rosa Plain. The 

plain is consistent with the portion of 

the current Russian River Valley 

viticultural area that wraps around both 

the west and north sides of the proposed 

expansion. Elevations in the proposed 

expansion area range from 715 feet 

down to 75 feet above sea level. They 

are similar to those in adjoining areas of 

the current Russian River Valley 

viticultural area. 

Soils and Geology 

The petitioner discusses the 

similarities between the soils of the 

proposed expansion area and those of 

the current viticultural area based on a 

soil association map (see ‘‘Soil Survey 

of Sonoma County, California,’’ online, 

issued by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (http:// 

websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/)). The 

soils on the Merced Hills included in 

the proposed expansion area formed 

mainly in sandstone rocks of the 

underlying Wilson Grove formation. 

This formation is characterized by low 

lying, rolling hills beginning just south 

of the Russian River near Forestville, 

arching southeast through Sebastopol, 

and ending at Penngrove. It formed 3 to 

5 million years ago under a shallow sea. 

According to the petitioner, the soils 

underlain by this formation are well 

suited to growing grapes in vineyards. 

The petitioner provides the following 

quotation discussing the suitability of 

the soils to growing grapes in the 

proposed expansion area: 

The sandy loam soils of the apple-growing 

region of Gold Ridge-Sebastopol form as a 

direct result of breakdown of Wilson Grove 

rock. The low ridge running from Forestville 

to Sebastopol and south to Cotati is the 

classic terroir of this association, now being 

recognized as prime land and climate for 

Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. (‘‘Diverse 

Geology/Soils Impact Wine Quality,’’ by 

Terry Wright, Professor of Geology, Sonoma 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49127 

State University, Practical Winery & 

Vineyard, September/October 2001, Vol. 

XXIII, No. 2.) 

The petitioner notes that the Wilson 

Grove formation underlies the current 

Russian River Valley viticultural area, 

but the current southeastern border cuts 

north to south through the formation, 

midway between Sebastopol and Cotati. 

However, the soil associations on either 

side of the southeastern border of the 

current Russian River Valley viticultural 

area are identical. The Goldridge-CotatiSebastopol soil association is nearly 

continuous throughout the formation. 

The petitioner reports that areas of 

Sebastopol sandy loam are in the 

Laguna Ranch Vineyard just north of the 

town of Sebastopol (in the current 

viticultural area) and also in the Two 

Rock Ranch Vineyard in the proposed 

expansion area, just west of the town of 

Cotati. 

The petitioner states that the Clear 

Lake-Reyes association is in the portion 

of the proposed expansion area north of 

the Merced Hills. The soils in this 

association are poorly drained, nearly 

level to gently sloping clays and clay 

loams in basins. They are in the 

southeast portion of the Santa Rosa 

plain and also in pockets further north, 

almost directly west of the city of Santa 

Rosa. The Huichica-Wright-Zamora 

association is further north in the 

proposed expansion area. The soils of 

this association are somewhat poorly 

drained to well drained, nearly level to 

strongly sloping loams to silty loams on 

low bench terraces and alluvial fans. 

They are common in the middle and 

northern portions of the Santa Rosa 

plain. They are predominant in the 

eastern portion of the current Russian 

River Valley viticultural area, including 

the city of Santa Rosa, and in the 

proposed expansion area. 

The petitioner notes that the ‘‘Soil 

Survey of Sonoma County, California’’

soil association map cited above shows 

that the current viticultural area 

boundary arbitrarily cuts directly 

through four major soil associations: 

Goldridge-Cotati-Sebastopol, Clear LakeReyes, Steinbeck-Los Osos, and 

Huichica-Wright-Zamora. The soils and 

the geology in the proposed expansion 

area are nearly identical to those in the 

adjacent areas of the current Russian 

River Valley viticultural area. 

TTB notes that T.D. ATF–159, which 

established the Russian River Valley 

viticultural area, does not identify any 

predominant soils or indicate any 

unique soils of the viticultural area. 

Grape Brix Comparison 

The petitioner compares Brix for 

grapes grown in both the current 

viticultural area and the proposed 

expansion area. Brix is the quantity of 

dissolved solids in grape juice, 

expressed as grams of sucrose in 100 

grams of solution at 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit (see 27 CFR 24.10); thus, 

Brix is the percent of sugar by weight. 

Citing a brochure published by the 

Russian River Winegrowers Association, 

the petitioner notes that Pinot Noir and 

Chardonnay are the two most prominent 

grape varieties grown in the established 

Russian River Valley viticultural area. 

The successful cultivation of the Pinot 

Noir grape, in particular, has been 

considered a hallmark of the Russian 

River Valley viticultural area, and the 

Pinot Gris grape variety recently has 

been growing in popularity. 

Data submitted with the petition 

shows the 4-year average Brix 

comparisons for the period 2003–6 for 

the Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, and Pinot 

Gris varieties among three vineyards in 

the current Russian River Valley 

viticultural area and the Two Rock 

Ranch Vineyard in the proposed 

expansion area (see table below). The 

petitioner asserts that the Brix levels for 

each variety at all of the vineyards are 

very similar, reflecting similar growing 

conditions for the grapes. 

2003–6 AVERAGE BRIX FOR SOME WINEGRAPES GROWN ON RANCHES IN THE CURRENT VITICULTURAL AREA AND THE

PROPOSED VITICULTURAL AREA

Ranch 

Average Brix 

Pinot Noir Chardonnay Pinot Gris 

Laguna North ............................................................................................................................... 25.04 23.79 ........................

Del Rio ......................................................................................................................................... 26.69 23.24 24.68 

MacMurray ................................................................................................................................... 25.77 ........................ 24.71 

Two Rock* ................................................................................................................................... 25.80 23.55 24.14 

* Located in the proposed viticultural area. 

In addition to the petition evidence 

summarized above, the petition 

includes six letters of support from area 

grape growers and winery owners. The 

supporters generally state their belief 

that the proposed expansion area has 

the same grape growing conditions as 

the current Russian River Valley 

viticultural area. The petition also 

includes a ‘‘Petition of Support: Russian 

River Valley AVA Expansion’’ with 208 

signatures. 

Opposition to the Proposed Expansion 

Prior to and during review of the 

petition for the proposed expansion, 

TTB received by mail, facsimile 

transmission, and e-mail more than 50 

pieces of correspondence opposing the 

petitioner’s proposed expansion. The 

correspondence generally asserts that 

the proposed expansion area falls 

outside the coastal fog line and thus has 

a different climate than that of the 

current viticultural area. The opponents 

of the proposed expansion are mostly 

vineyard or winery owners from the 

current viticultural area. Several of them 

state that even though grapes grown in 

the proposed expansion area ‘‘may 

eventually be brought to similar Brix, 

pH and total acidity maturity, the bloom 

and harvest dates are much later than in 

the Russian River Valley.’’ TTB, while 

noting this opposing correspondence, 

also notes that the assertions in the 

correspondence were not accompanied 

by any specific data that contradicts the 

petitioner’s submitted evidence. 

Northern Sonoma Expansion 

TTB notes that the current boundaries 

of the Russian River Valley viticultural 

area and of the Green Valley of Russian 

River Valley viticultural area (which lies 

entirely within the Russian River Valley 

area) extend beyond the Northern 

Sonoma viticultural area boundary to 

the south and southeast; in the case of 

the Russian River Valley viticultural 

area, this was as a result of the 30,200- 

acre, 2005 expansion approved in T.D. 

TTB–32. The currently proposed 

14,044-acre expansion of the Russian 

River Valley viticultural area similarly 

is outside the boundary line of the 

Northern Sonoma viticultural area. 

TTB also proposes in this document 

a southern and southeastern expansion 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
49128 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area 

boundary line to encompass all of the 

Russian River Valley viticultural area, 

including the currently proposed 

expansion of the Russian River Valley 

viticultural area, so that all of the 

Russian River Valley viticultural area 

would again fall within the Northern 

Sonoma viticultural area, as was the 

case prior to the 2005 expansion. The 

Northern Sonoma viticultural area 

would increase in size by 44,244 acres 

to 394,088 acres, or by 9 percent. The 

following information is provided in 

support of this proposed expansion. 

Name and Boundary Evidence 

The Northern Sonoma viticultural 

area was established on May 17, 1985, 

by T.D. ATF–204 (50 FR 20560), which 

stated at 50 FR 20562: 

* * * Six approved viticultural areas are 

located entirely within the Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area as follows: Chalk Hill, 

Alexander Valley, Sonoma County Green 

Valley [subsequently renamed Green Valley 

of Russian River Valley], Dry Creek Valley, 

Russian River Valley, and Knights Valley. 

The Sonoma County Green Valley and 

Chalk Hill areas are each entirely within the 

Russian River Valley area. The boundaries of 

the Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley, 

Russian River Valley, and Knights Valley 

areas all fit perfectly together dividing 

northern Sonoma County into four large 

areas. The Northern Sonoma area uses all of 

the outer boundaries of those four areas with 

the exception of an area southwest of the Dry 

Creek Valley area and west of the Russian 

River Valley area. 

The originally established Northern 

Sonoma viticultural area was expanded 

by T.D. ATF–233, published in the 

Federal Register on August 26, 1986 (51 

FR 30352) and, again, by T.D. ATF–300, 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 9, 1990 (55 FR 32400). 

The current southern portion of the 

boundary line of the Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area, west to east, follows 

California State Highway 12 from its 

intersection with Bohemian Highway, 

through the town of Sebastopol, to its 

intersection with Fulton Road. Although 

T.D. ATF–204 does not explain the basis 

for the choice of California State 

Highway 12 as the southern portion of 

the Northern Sonoma boundary line, 

TTB notes that at that time California 

State Highway 12 also formed the 

southern portion of the boundary line of 

the Russian River Valley viticultural 

area. 

T.D. ATF–204 included information 

regarding the geographical meaning of 

‘‘Northern Sonoma’’ as distinct from the 

rest of Sonoma County. Although a Web 

search conducted by TTB failed to 

disclose conclusive information 

regarding current nonviticultural usage 

of ‘‘Northern Sonoma’’ as a geographical 

term, a Web search for ‘‘Southern 

Sonoma County’’ did disclose specific 

geographical data. The Southern 

Sonoma County Resource Conservation 

District (SCC–RCD) Web site has 

Sonoma County maps and describes the 

district as including the ‘‘southern 

slopes of Mecham Hill’’ (alternative 

spelling of ‘‘Meacham,’’ as on the USGS 

map), as the northern portion of the 

Petaluma River watershed in southern 

Sonoma County. Meacham Hill, 

according to the USGS Cotati map, lies 

1.25 miles southeast of the area 

included in the expansion of the 

Northern Sonoma viticultural area 

proposed in this document. Further, the 

SCC–RCD maps show that the southern 

Sonoma County watershed excludes the 

Gold Ridge District, which comprises 

much of the Russian River watershed, 

including the Russian River Valley 

viticultural area and the area proposed 

in this document to be added to it. 

Sonoma County Relocation, a real 

estate service, defines southern Sonoma 

County as extending south from the 

town of Penngrove. According to the 

USGS Cotati map, Penngrove lies 2.4 

miles east-southeast of the proposed 

expansion of the Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area boundary line. The City 

of Petaluma, the southernmost large 

population center in Sonoma County, 

lies 6 miles southeast of the proposed 

expansion to the Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area. 

Based on the above, we believe it is 

reasonable to conclude that the name 

‘‘Northern Sonoma’’, as distinct from 

southern Sonoma County, includes all 

of the Russian River Valley viticultural 

area, including the proposed expansion 

of that area that is the subject of this 

document. 

Distinguishing Features 

According to the USGS Sonoma 

County topographical map, the 

topography of the area that would be 

included in the proposed expansion of 

the Northern Sonoma viticultural area 

has only a few gently rolling hills and 

ridges in the large region known as 

‘‘Cotati Valley.’’ The topography of the 

expansion area mirrors the valley terrain 

that is to its north and that is within the 

original boundary line. 

TTB Determinations 

TTB concludes that the petition to 

expand the 155,024-acre Russian River 

Valley viticultural area by 14,044 acres 

merits consideration and public 

comment, as invited in this notice. TTB 

also concludes that the expansion of the 

Northern Sonoma viticultural area to 

conform its southern and southeastern 

boundary line to that of the expanded 

Russian River Valley viticultural area 

merits consideration and public 

comment. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative boundary 

descriptions of the petitioned-for 

expansion of the Russian River Valley 

viticultural area and the TTB-proposed 

expansion of the Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area in the proposed § 9.66 

and § 9.70 regulatory text amendments 

published at the end of this notice. 

Maps 

The petitioner provided the required 

map to document the proposed 

expansion of the Russian River Valley 

viticultural area, and we list it below in 

the proposed § 9.66 regulatory text 

amendment. TTB relied on maps 

provided for the 2005 expansion of the 

Russian River Valley viticultural area 

and the map provided by the petitioner 

for the current expansion to document 

the boundary description for the 

proposed expansion of the Northern 

Sonoma viticultural area. A revised and 

expanded list of maps is included in the 

proposed § 9.70 regulatory text 

amendment. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

The proposed expansions of the 

Russian River Valley and Northern 

Sonoma viticultural areas will not affect 

currently approved wine labels. The 

approval of this proposed expansion 

may allow additional vintners to use 

‘‘Russian River Valley’’ or ‘‘Northern 

Sonoma’’ as an appellation of origin on 

their 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 eligible to use 

a viticultural area name as an 

appellation of origin or a term of 

viticultural significance in a brand 

name, at least 85 percent of the wine 

must be derived from grapes grown 

within the area represented by that 

name or term, and the wine must meet 

the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 

4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine 

has a brand name containing a 

viticultural area name or other 

viticulturally significant term that was 

used as a brand name on a label 

approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 

CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

We invite comments from interested 

members of the public on whether we 

should expand the Russian River Valley 

viticultural area as described above. We 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49129 

specifically request comment on the 

similarity of the proposed expansion 

area to the current Russian River Valley 

viticultural area. In particular, we 

would like comments on the climate of 

the proposed Russian River Valley 

viticultural area expansion area as 

compared to that of the current 

viticultural area and on the placement 

of the boundary lines for the proposed 

expansion. 

We also invite comments on the 

proposed expansion to the Northern 

Sonoma viticultural area as described in 

this document. Specifically, we are 

interested in comments that address this 

proposed expansion as it relates to the 

2005 expansion and to the current 

proposed expansion of the Russian 

River Valley viticultural area. 

Whether in favor of, or in opposition 

to, either of the proposed expansions, 

you should support any comments 

made with specific data or other 

appropriate information about the name, 

proposed boundaries, or distinguishing 

features of the proposed expansion area. 

Submitting Comments 

You may submit comments on this 

notice by using one of the following two 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You 

may send comments via the online 

comment form posted with this notice 

within Docket No. TTB–2008–0009 on 

‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal erulemaking portal, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available under Notice 

No. 90 on the TTB Web site at http:// 

www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental 

files may be attached to comments 

submitted via Regulations.gov. For 

complete instructions on how to use 

Regulations.gov, visit the site and click 

on ‘‘User Guide’’ under ‘‘How to Use 

this Site.’’

• U.S. Mail: You may send comments 

via postal mail to the Director, 

Regulations and Rulings Division, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, 

DC 20044–4412. 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in this notice. 

Your comments must reference Notice 

No. 90 and include your name and 

mailing address. Your comments also 

must be made in English, be legible, and 

be written in language acceptable for 

public disclosure. We do not 

acknowledge receipt of comments, and 

we consider all comments as originals. 

If you are commenting on behalf of an 

association, business, or other entity, 

your comment must include the entity’s 

name as well as your name and position 

title. If you comment via 

Regulations.gov, please enter the 

entity’s name in the ‘‘Organization’’

blank of the online comment form. If 

you comment via postal mail, please 

submit your entity’s comment on 

letterhead. 

You may also write to the 

Administrator before the comment 

closing date to ask for a public hearing. 

The Administrator reserves the right to 

determine whether to hold a public 

hearing. 

Confidentiality 

All submitted comments and 

attachments are part of the public record 

and subject to disclosure. Do not 

enclose any material in your comments 

that you consider to be confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

Public Disclosure 

We will post, and you may view, 

copies of this notice, selected 

supporting materials, and any online or 

mailed comments we receive about this 

proposal within Docket No. TTB–2008–

0009 on the Federal e-rulemaking 

portal, Regulations.gov, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available on the TTB Web 

site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/ 

wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice 

No. 90. You may also reach the relevant 

docket through the Regulations.gov 

search page at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. For instructions 

on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the 

site and click on ‘‘User Guide’’ under 

‘‘How to Use this Site.’’

All posted comments will display the 

commenter’s name, organization (if 

any), city, and State, and, in the case of 

mailed comments, all address 

information, including e-mail addresses. 

We may omit voluminous attachments 

or material that we consider unsuitable 

for posting. 

You also may view copies of this 

notice, all related petitions, maps and 

other supporting materials, and any 

electronic or mailed comments we 

receive about this proposal by 

appointment at the TTB Information 

Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. You may also 

obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 11- 

inch page. Contact our information 

specialist at the above address or by 

telephone at 202–927–2400 to schedule 

an appointment or to request copies of 

comments or other materials. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

We certify that this proposed 

regulation, if adopted, would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed regulation imposes no 

new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of a viticultural 

area name would be the result of a 

proprietor’s efforts and consumer 

acceptance of wines from that area. 

Therefore, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required. 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it 

requires no regulatory assessment. 

Drafting Information 

Jennifer Berry drafted this notice. 

Other staff members of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division contributed to the 

notice. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For reasons discussed in the 

preamble, we propose to amend title 27, 

chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

2. Section 9.66 is amended: 

a. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

(b)(9), by removing the word ‘‘, and’’ at 

the end of paragraph (b)(10) and adding, 

in its place, a semicolon, by removing 

the period at the end of paragraph 

(b)(11) and adding, in its place, the 

word ‘‘and’’ preceded by a semicolon, 

and by adding a new paragraph (b)(12); 

and 

b. In paragraph (c), by revising 

paragraphs (c)(15) through (c)(19), by 

redesignating paragraphs (c)(20) through 

(c)(34) as paragraphs (c)(26) through 

(c)(40), and by adding new paragraphs 

(c)(20) through (c)(25). 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 9.66 Russian River Valley. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(12) Cotati Quadrangle, California—

Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 1954, 

Photorevised 1980. 

(c ) * * * 

(15) Proceed southeast 0.5 mile, 

crossing over the end of an unnamed, 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
49130 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

unimproved dirt road to an unnamed 

524-foot elevation peak, T6N, R8W, on 

the Two Rock map. 

(16) Proceed southeast 0.75 mile in a 

straight line to the intersection of an 

unnamed unimproved dirt road (leading 

to four barn-like structures) and an 

unnamed medium-duty road (known 

locally as Roblar Road), T6N, R8W, on 

the Two Rock map. 

(17) Proceed south 0.5 mile to an 

unnamed 678-foot elevation peak just 

slightly north of the intersection of T5N 

and T6N, R8W, on the Two Rock map. 

(18) Proceed east-southeast 0.8 mile to 

an unnamed peak with a 599-foot 

elevation, T5N, R8W, on the Two Rock 

map. 

(19) Proceed east-southeast 0.7 mile to 

an unnamed peak with a 604-foot 

elevation, T5N, R8W, on the Two Rock 

map. 

(20) Proceed east-southeast 0.9 mile to 

the intersection of a short, unnamed 

light-duty road leading past a group of 

barn-like structures and a medium duty 

road known locally as Meacham Road, 

and cross onto the Cotati map T5N, 

R8W. 

(21) Proceed north-northeast 0.75 mile 

to the intersection of Meacham and 

Stony Point Roads, T5N, R8W, on the 

Cotati map. 

(22) Proceed southeast 1.1 miles along 

Stony Point Road to the point where the 

200-foot elevation contour line 

intersects Stony Point Road, T5N, R8W, 

on the Cotati map. 

(23) Proceed north-northeast 0.5 mile 

to the point where an unnamed 

intermittent stream intersects U.S. 101 

(and to the point where the land grant 

line also crosses), T5N, R8W, on the 

Cotati map. 

(24) Proceed north 4.25 miles along 

U.S. 101 to the point where Santa Rosa 

Avenue exits U.S. 101 (approximately 

0.5 mile north of the Wilfred Avenue 

overpass) T6N, R8W, on the Cotati map. 

(25) Proceed north 1.1 miles along 

Santa Rosa Avenue to its intersection 

with Todd Road, crossing onto the Santa 

Rosa map, T6N, R8W, on the Santa Rosa 

map. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 9.70 is amended: 

a. By revising paragraph (b); and 

b. In paragraph (c), by revising the 

introductory text and paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(5), by redesignating 

paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(26) as 

paragraphs (c)(23) through (c)(43), and 

by adding new paragraphs (c)(6) through 

(c)(22). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 9.70 Northern Sonoma. 

* * * * * 

(b) Approved Maps. The nine United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) maps 

used to determine the boundary of the 

Northern Sonoma viticultural area are 

titled: 

(1) Sonoma County, California, scale 

1:100 000, 1970; 

(2) Asti Quadrangle, California, scale 

1:24 000, 1959, Photorevised 1978; 

(3) Jimtown Quadrangle, California—

Sonoma County; scale 1:24 000, 1955, 

Photorevised 1975; 

(4) Camp Meeker Quadrangle, 

California—Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 

1954, Photorevised 1971; 

(5) Valley Ford Quadrangle, 

California, scale 1:24 000, 1954, 

Photorevised 1971; 

(6) Two Rock Quadrangle, California, 

scale 1:24 000, 1954, Photorevised 1971; 

(7) Cotati Quadrangle, California—

Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 1954, 

Photorevised 1980; 

(8) Santa Rosa Quadrangle, 

California—Sonoma Co., scale 1:24 000, 

1954, Photorevised 1980; and 

(9) Mark West Springs Quadrangle, 

California, scale 1:24 000, 1993. 

(c) Boundary. The Northern Sonoma 

viticultural area is located in Sonoma 

County, California. The boundary 

description includes (in parentheses) 

the local names of roads that are not 

identified by name on the map. 

(1) The beginning point is on the 

USGS Sonoma County, California, map 

in the town of Monte Rio at the 

intersection of the Russian River and a 

secondary highway (Bohemian 

Highway); 

(2) The boundary follows this 

secondary highway (Bohemian 

Highway), southeasterly parallel to 

Dutch Bill Creek, through the towns of 

Camp Meeker, Occidental, and 

Freestone, and then northeasterly to its 

intersection with an unnamed 

secondary highway, known locally as 

Bodega Road (also designated as State 

Highway 12), at BM 214, as shown on 

the Valley Ford Quadrangle map. 

(3) The boundary follows Bodega 

Road (State Highway 12) northeasterly 

0.9 miles on the Valley Ford map; then 

onto the Camp Meeker map to its 

intersection, at BM 486, with Jonive 

Road to the north and an unnamed light 

duty road to the south (Barnett Valley 

Road), T6N, R9W, on the Camp Meeker 

map. 

(4) The boundary follows Barnett 

Valley Road south 2.2 miles, then east 

crossing over the Valley Ford map and 

onto the Two Rock map, to its 

intersection with Burnside Road, 

section 17, T6N, R9W. 

(5) The boundary follows Burnside 

Road southeast 3.3 miles to its 

intersection with an unnamed medium 

duty road at BM 375, T6N, R9W. 

(6) The boundary follows a straight 

line southeast 0.6 mile to an unnamed 

610-foot elevation peak, 1.5 miles 

southwest of Canfield School, T6N, 

R9W. 

(7) The boundary follows a straight 

line east-southeast 0.75 mile to an 

unnamed 641-foot elevation peak 1.4 

miles south-southwest of Canfield 

School, T6N, R9W. 

(8) The boundary follows a straight 

line northeast 0.85 mile to its 

intersection with an unnamed 

intermittent stream and Canfield Road; 

then continues on the straight line 

northeast 0.3 mile to its intersection 

with the common Ranges 8 and 9 line, 

just west of an unnamed unimproved 

dirt road, T6N. 

(9) The boundary follows a straight 

line southeast 0.5 mile, crossing over 

the end of an unnamed, unimproved 

dirt road to an unnamed 524-foot 

elevation peak, T6N, R8W. 

(10) The boundary follows a straight 

line southeast 0.75 mile to the 

intersection of an unnamed unimproved 

dirt road (leading to four barn-like 

structures) and an unnamed mediumduty road (known locally as Roblar 

Road), T6N, R8W. 

(11) The boundary follows a straight 

line south 0.5 mile to an unnamed 678- 

foot elevation peak, T6N, R8W. 

(12) The boundary follows a straight 

line east-southeast 0.8 mile to an 

unnamed peak with a 599-foot 

elevation, T5N, R8W. 

(13) The boundary follows a straight 

line east-southeast 0.7 mile to an 

unnamed peak with a 604-foot 

elevation, T5N, R8W. 

(14) The boundary follows a straight 

line east-southeast 0.9 mile, onto the 

Cotati map, to the intersection of a 

short, unnamed light-duty road leading 

past a group of barn-like structures and 

a medium duty road known locally as 

Meacham Road, T5N, R8W. 

(15) The boundary follows Meacham 

Road north-northeast 0.75 mile to its 

intersection with Stony Point Road, 

T5N, R8W. 

(16) The boundary follows Stony 

Point Road southeast 1.1 miles to the 

point where the 200-foot elevation 

contour line intersects Stony Point 

Road, T5N, R8W. 

(17) The boundary follows a straight 

line north-northeast 0.5 mile to the 

point where an unnamed intermittent 

stream intersects U.S. 101 (and to the 

point where the Roblar de la Miseria 

land grant line crosses), T5N, R8W. 

(18) The boundary follows U.S. Route 

101 north 4.25 miles to the point where 

Santa Rosa Avenue exits U.S. Route 101 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 20, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49131 

to the east (approximately 0.5 mile 

north of the Wilfred Avenue overpass) 

T6N, R8W. 

(19) The boundary follows Santa Rosa 

Avenue north 1.1 miles to its 

intersection with Todd Road, crossing 

on to the Santa Rosa map, T6N, R8W. 

(20) The boundary follows Santa Rosa 

Avenue generally north 5.8 miles, 

eventually becoming Mendocino 

Avenue, to its intersection with an 

unnamed secondary road, locally 

known as Bicentennial Way, 0.3 mile 

north-northwest of BM 161 on 

Mendocino Avenue, section 11, T7N, 

R8W. 

(21) The boundary follows a straight 

line north 2.5 miles crossing over the 

906-foot elevation peak in section 35, 

T8N, R8W, crossing onto the Mark West 

Springs map, to its intersection with 

Mark West Springs Road and the 

meandering 280-foot elevation line in 

section 26, T6N, R8W. 

(22) The boundary follows the 

unnamed secondary highway, Mark 

West Springs Road, on the Sonoma 

County map, generally north and east, 

eventually turning into Porter Road and 

then to Petrified Forest Road, passing 

BM 545, the town of Mark West Springs, 

BM 495, and the Petrified Forest area, to 

its intersection with the Sonoma 

County-Napa County line. 

* * * * * 

Signed: August 13, 2008. 

Vicky McDowell, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–19327 Filed 8–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–0497] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Special Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’, Boston 

Harbor, MA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

increase the size of the Boston Inner 

Harbor Special Anchorage Area ‘‘A’’ at 

the entrance to Fort Point Channel in 

Boston Harbor, Boston, MA at the 

request of the Boston Harbormaster and 

the Boston Harbor Yacht Club. This 

action will provide additional 

anchorage space and provide a safe and 

secure anchorage for vessels of not more 

than 65 feet in length. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

October 20, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2008–0497 to the Docket 

Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Online: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

(3) Hand delivery: Room W12–140 on 

the Ground Floor of the West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

(4) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander 

(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 

Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, 

Telephone (617) 223–8355 or e-mail 

John.J.Mauro@uscg.mil. 

If you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

to use the Docket Management Facility. 

Please see DOT’s ‘‘Privacy Act’’

paragraph below. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0497), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. 

You may submit your comments and 

material by electronic means, mail, fax, 

or delivery to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; 

but please submit your comments and 

material by only one means. If you 

submit them by mail or delivery, submit 

them in an unbound format, no larger 

than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit them by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period. We may 

change this proposed rule in view of 

them. 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Enter the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2008–0497) in the 

Search box, and click ‘‘Go >>.’’ You may 

also visit either the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the DOT West Building, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays; or, Commander 

(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 

Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110, 

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the 

Department of Transportation’s Privacy 

Act Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477), or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one to the Docket Management 

Facility at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Background and Purpose 

In 1982, three anchorages were 

established in response to a request by 

the Boston Harbormaster. These three 

anchorages were designated Boston 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS