Proposed Rule2023-06350
Proposed Establishment of the Contra Costa Viticultural Area and Modification of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Viticultural Areas
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 29, 2023
Issuing agencies
Treasury DepartmentAlcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Abstract
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to establish the approximately 167,146-acre "Contra Costa" American viticultural area (AVA) in Contra Costa County, California. Only the westernmost portion of the proposed AVA would lie in the established San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. To avoid this partial overlap, TTB proposes to expand the boundary of the established San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs to entirely encompass the proposed Contra Costa AVA. The proposed expansions would add approximately 109,955 acres to each of the established AVAs. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18471-18481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06350]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2023-0004; Notice No. 223]
RIN 1513-AC97
Proposed Establishment of the Contra Costa Viticultural Area and
Modification of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Viticultural
Areas
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
establish the approximately 167,146-acre ``Contra Costa'' American
viticultural area (AVA) in Contra Costa County, California. Only the
westernmost portion of the proposed AVA would lie in the established
San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. To avoid this partial
overlap, TTB proposes to expand the boundary of the established San
Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs to entirely encompass the proposed
Contra Costa AVA. The proposed expansions would add approximately
109,955 acres to each of the established AVAs. TTB designates
viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of
their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may
purchase. TTB invites comments on these proposals.
DATES: TTB must receive your comments on or before May 30, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this
proposal and view copies of this document, its supporting materials,
and any comments TTB receives on the proposal within Docket No. TTB-
2023-0004, as posted on <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> (<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>),
the Federal e-rulemaking portal. Please see the ``Public
Participation'' section of this document below for full details on how
to comment on this proposal via <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> or U.S. mail, and for
full details on how to obtain copies of this document, its supporting
materials, and any comments related to this proposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated the functions
and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions to
the TTB Administrator through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated
[[Page 18472]]
December 10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24,
2003).
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9
of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as
established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow
vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or
other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its
geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2))
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and allows any interested
party to petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA.
Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards
for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an
AVA must include the following:
<bullet> Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
<bullet> An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed AVA;
<bullet> A narrative description of the features of the proposed
AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;
<bullet> The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
<bullet> A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary based on USGS map markings.
If the petition proposes the establishment of a new AVA entirely
within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, the evidence submitted must
include information that identifies the attributes that are consistent
with the existing AVA and explain how the proposed AVA is sufficiently
distinct from the existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate
recognition. If a petition seeks to expand the boundaries of an
existing AVA, the petition must show how the name of the existing AVA
also applies to the expansion area, and must demonstrate that the area
covered by the expansion has the same distinguishing features as those
of the existing AVA, and different features from those of the area
outside the proposed, new boundary.
Petition To Establish the Contra Costa AVA and To Modify the Boundaries
of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs
TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram, on behalf of the
Contra Costa Winegrowers Association, proposing to establish the
``Contra Costa'' AVA and to modify the boundaries of the existing San
Francisco Bay (27 CFR 9.157) and Central Coast (27 CFR 9.75) AVAs. The
proposed Contra Costa AVA is located in Contra Costa County,
California, and is partially within the two established AVAs. The
approximately 167,146-acre proposed AVA currently contains at least 14
wineries and at least 60 commercial vineyards covering a total of
approximately 1,700 acres. The most commonly grown grape varietal in
the proposed AVA is Zinfandel, but other varieties grown in the
proposed AVA include petite sirah, mourvedre, chardonnay, and cabernet
sauvignon.
The westernmost portion of the proposed Contra Costa AVA would lie
within the existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. To
address the partial overlap and account for viticultural similarities,
the petition also proposes to expand the boundaries of both established
AVAs so that the entire proposed Contra Costa AVA would be included
within both AVAs. The proposed expansion would increase the size of the
San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs by approximately 109,955 acres
each.
The distinguishing features of the proposed Contra Costa AVA are
its topography and climate. The petition also included information
about the soils of the proposed AVA, but did not provide a clear
comparison of the soils in the proposed AVA to those of the surrounding
regions. Therefore, TTB is unable to determine if soils are a
distinguishing feature of the proposed AVA. Unless otherwise noted, all
information and data contained in the following sections are from the
petition to establish the proposed AVA and its supporting exhibits.
Proposed Contra Costa AVA
Name Evidence
The proposed Contra Costa AVA takes its name from its location
within Contra Costa County, California. According to the petition, the
Spanish phrase ``contra costa'' translates to ``opposite coast,'' which
is a reference to the county's position opposite San Francisco on San
Francisco Bay. The petition states that prior to Prohibition, Contra
Costa County was one of the Bay Area's leading winegrowing regions. The
petition notes that grapes from vineyards in the region have a
reputation for having their own ``Contra Costa style,'' \1\ described
as an ``earthy, dusty and leathery quality'' attributed to the
``defining terroir'' of the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ <a href="http://wine.appellationamerica.com/wine-region/Contra-Costa-County.html">http://wine.appellationamerica.com/wine-region/Contra-Costa-County.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition included multiple examples of the use of the name
``Contra Costa'' to describe the region of the proposed AVA. For
example, the Contra Costa Water District supplies water to customers
within the proposed AVA. Non-profit agencies serving the proposed AVA
include Contra Costa Humane Society, Contra Costa Senior Legal
Services, Meals on Wheels of Contra Costa, and Sustainable Contra
Costa. Other businesses within the proposed AVA include Contra Costa
Hardwood Floor Service, Alameda Contra Costa Fire Extinguisher
Equipment Company, Contra Costa Farms LLC, Contra Costa Cinema, Contra
Costa Country Club, Contra Costa Auto Sales, and Contra Costa
Powersports.
Boundary Evidence
The proposed Contra Costa AVA is located in north-central and
eastern Contra Costa County, in California, along the southern coast of
Suisun Bay. The northern boundary of the proposed AVA follows the
southern shore of Suisun Bay. The eastern boundary follows a series of
straight lines drawn between points on the USGS maps and approximates
the boundary between Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County, which
is farther inland and receives less direct marine influence than the
proposed AVA. The southern
[[Page 18473]]
boundary is mostly comprised of a series of straight lines drawn
between points on the maps and separates the proposed AVA from higher
elevations and inland regions with less marine influence. The western
boundary also follows a series of straight lines between points and
separates the proposed AVA from regions with steeper slopes and greater
marine influence, including the established Lamorinda AVA (27 CFR
9.254), which shares a portion of its boundary with the proposed Contra
Costa AVA.
Distinguishing Features
According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the
proposed Contra Costa AVA are its topography and climate. The Suisun
Bay is directly to the north of the proposed AVA. Although some islands
are located in the bay, the petition excluded them due to their
waterlogged, highly organic, acidic soils that are unlikely to be
suitable for viticulture. As a result, the following sections will
describe the features of the regions to the east, south, and west of
the proposed AVA.
Topography
According to the petition, the proposed Contra Costa AVA consists
of relatively flat terrain interrupted in places by rolling hills. Most
of the terrain has elevations below 100 feet, and nearly all of the
proposed AVA is below 1,000 feet. Slope angles within the proposed AVA
are typically less than 5 percent, but can reach up to 30 percent in
some of the hills along the western and southern boundary and in the
ridgeline that runs north-south between Concord and Bay Point. Although
some areas of steep slopes are included in the proposed AVA in order to
simplify the boundary, the petition states that over 71 percent of the
proposed AVA has slopes with less than 5 percent grade, and 78 of the
proposed AVA has slopes with less than 10 percent grade. The petition
states that cool, heavy marine air stays at lower elevations, leading
to diurnal cooling. Areas at higher elevations are above the layer of
marine air and experience less cooling. Differences in temperatures can
cause differences in grape development, the timing of harvest, and
sugar accumulation and acidity in the grapes.
East of the proposed AVA, the terrain is generally flat as one
moves into the California Delta and the San Joaquin Valley. To the
south and west of the proposed AVA, the terrain becomes steeper, with
slope angles generally exceeding 20 percent and commonly above 30
percent. Elevations to the west and south of the proposed AVA are also
generally higher than within the proposed AVA, exceeding 1,300 feet in
the region to the west and reaching 3,849 feet at the summit of Mt.
Diablo to the south of the proposed AVA.
Climate
The petition provided information about the climate of the proposed
Contra Costa AVA. According to the petition, the warm days and cool
nights affect the character of the grapes grown in the proposed AVA and
the resulting wine, resulting in a ``definitive Contra Costa style''
\2\ that is characterized by an ``earthy, dusty and leathery quality.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ <a href="http://wine.appellationamerica.com/wine-region/Contra-Costa-County.html">http://wine.appellationamerica.com/wine-region/Contra-Costa-County.html</a>.
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate data in the petition included growing degree day
accumulations \4\ and average annual precipitation amounts. The
petition also included information about the average growing season
maximum temperatures and the average minimum temperatures from within
the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. However, because the
temperature data was from only 2 years, TTB was unable to determine if
maximum and minimum temperatures are a distinguishing feature of the
proposed AVA, and the information is not included in this rulemaking
document.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64. In the Winkler
climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the
growing season, measured in annual Growing Degree Days (GDDs),
defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree
Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees F, the
minimum temperature required for grapevine growth.
\5\ The maximum and minimum temperature data is included in
Tables 4 and 5 of the petition, which is posted within Docket No.
TTB-2023-0004 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\6\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS47.
\7\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS170.
\8\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS247.
\9\ Station identified in petition as KCAWALNU35.
\10\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS248.
\11\ Station identified in petition as HBP.
\12\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS178.
\13\ Station identified in petition as BNE.
\14\ Station identified in petition as ONO.
\15\ Station identified in petition as CIMIS213.
Table 1--2014-2019 Growing Degree Day Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location (direction from proposed AVA) 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brentwood \6\ (within)........................ 4,275 4,141 4,157 4,090 N/A 4,195
Concord \7\ (within).......................... 3,634 3,579 N/A N/A 3,825 3,008
Jersey Island \8\ (northeast)................. 3,961 3,955 4,047 N/A N/A N/A
Walnut Creek-Lakewood \9\ (south)............. 4,211 4,025 4,417 N/A N/A N/A
San Joaquin Valley \10\ (east)................ 3,932 4,423 4,355 N/A N/A N/A
Harvey O. Banks Pumping Station \11\ (south).. 4,633 4,535 4,840 4,607 4,767 4,973
Moraga \12\ (southwest)....................... 2,781 2,729 2,809 2,716 2,665 2,820
Briones Regional Park \13\ (west)............. 3,281 3,156 N/A 3,124 3,279 3,469
Oakland Hills \14\ (west)..................... 2,590 2,327 2,859 2,386 2,598 2,602
El Cerrito \15\ (west)........................ 2,118 1,848 2,222 2,005 2,371 2,308
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the proposed Contra Costa AVA, annual GDD accumulations are
generally warm, ranging from a low of 3,008 to a high of 4,275. To the
northeast of the proposed AVA, at the Jersey Island location, GDD
accumulations are similar to those found in the proposed AVA. However,
the petition states that this region was not included in the proposed
AVA due to a difference in soil types. South of the proposed AVA, in
the Lakewood region of Walnut Creek, GDD accumulations are also similar
to those within the proposed AVA, although the 2017 GDD accumulations
for Lakewood were higher. Additionally, the petition states this region
was not included in the proposed AVA because it is a largely
residential area that is not suited for commercial viticulture. Farther
south, at the Harvey O. Banks pumping station in Byron, GDD
accumulations are significantly higher than within the
[[Page 18474]]
proposed AVA. To the east, within the San Joaquin Valley, GDD
accumulations are generally warmer than within the proposed AVA, as the
marine influence decreases as one moves farther inland. West of the
proposed AVA, as one moves closer to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific
Ocean, GDD accumulations are lower than within the proposed AVA. GDD
accumulations west of the proposed AVA range from 1,848 at El Cerrito,
which is adjacent to San Francisco Bay, to 3,469 at Briones Regional
Park, which is further inland and closer to the proposed Contra Costa
AVA.
The petition also includes annual precipitation amounts for the
proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. The data is shown in the
following table. Four stations with two years or less of precipitation
data, which are located to the northeast, east, and southeast of the
proposed AVA, were excluded from this chart, but are included in the
petition. The precipitation data shows that the proposed Contra Costa
AVA received less rainfall than the regions to the west and southwest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The period of record is from October 1 of one year to
September 30 of the next year.
\17\ Station identified in petition as KCAANTIO10.
Table 2--Annual \16\ Precipitation Amounts in Millimeters
[mm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location (direction from proposed AVA) 2017-2018 2016-2017 2015-2016 2014-2015 2013-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brentwood (within)............................. 243 345 497 435 279
Antioch \17\ (within).......................... 330 531 391 405 301
Concord (within)............................... 351 565 N/A 335 232
Briones Regional Park (west)................... N/A N/A 655 469 374
Moraga (southwest)............................. 593 1,712 1,179 712 907
Oakland Hills (west)........................... 565 1,073 737 561 490
El Cerrito (west).............................. 483 N/A 610 553 411
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Distinguishing Features
The proposed Contra Costa AVA is distinguished from the surrounding
regions by its topography and climate. The proposed AVA is a region of
relatively flat terrain interrupted in places by rolling hills. Slope
angles are typically less than 5 percent, and most of the terrain has
elevations below 100 feet. Within the proposed AVA, GDD accumulations
range from 3,008 to 4,275, and average annual precipitation amounts
range from 232 mm to 565 mm.
North of the proposed AVA is Suisun Bay. Although there are islands
within the bay, the petition omitted them from the proposed AVA due to
their mucky soils that are unsuitable for commercial viticulture. To
the east of the proposed AVA is the California Delta and the San
Joaquin Valley, which are generally flat and lack the rolling hills
that interrupt the proposed Contra Costa AVA. GDD accumulations east of
the proposed AVA are generally higher, ranging from 3,932 to 4,423.
South of the proposed AVA, the terrain is steeper, with slope angles
generally exceeding 20 percent grade. GDD accumulations are also
higher, ranging from 4,025 to 4,973. West of the proposed AVA,
elevations are higher and can exceed 1,300 feet. The climate west of
the proposed AVA is generally cooler and wetter, with GDD accumulations
ranging from 1,848 to 3,469 and average annual precipitation amounts
ranging from 411 mm to 737 mm.
Comparison of the Proposed Contra Costa AVA to the Existing San
Francisco Bay AVA
The San Francisco Bay AVA was established by T.D. ATF-407, which
was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 1985 (50 FR
43130). T.D. ATF-407 describes the San Francisco Bay AVA as entirely
being within seven counties, including the eastern portion of Contra
Costa County. The distinguishing feature of the San Francisco Bay AVA
is ``a marine climate which is heavily influenced by the proximity of
the San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean.'' T.D. ATF-407 also notes
that the eastern boundary of the AVA was chosen, in part, as a way of
separating the AVA from the drier, warmer inland region of the Central
Valley, which lacks a strong marine influence.
The proposed Contra Costa AVA is partially located within the San
Francisco Bay AVA and shares some of the characteristics of the larger
established AVA. For example, similar to other locations in the San
Francisco AVA, the proposed AVA is affected by cool, moist air from the
Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. The proposed AVA is also
generally cooler and wetter than the inland region to the east.
However, the proposed Contra Costa AVA has some characteristics that
distinguish it from the larger San Francisco Bay AVA. For instance,
although the proposed Contra Costa AVA is influenced by marine air from
San Francisco Bay, the proposed AVA is not adjacent to San Francisco
Bay, the air travelling through Suisun Bay instead. Additionally, while
T.D. ATF-407 describes the San Francisco Bay AVA as having a cool
Mediterranean climate classification, the proposed Contra Costa AVA
also includes regions with a warm Mediterranean climate classification.
Comparison of the Proposed Contra Costa AVA to the Existing Central
Coast AVA
The Central Coast AVA was established by T.D. ATF-216, which also
established the San Francisco Bay AVA. T.D. ATF-216 describes the
Central Coast AVA as a region between the Pacific Ocean and the Coast
Ranges of California. The Central Coast AVA has a climate that is
greatly affected by the marine influence, with the region to the east
of the AVA having a more arid climate.
The proposed Contra Costa AVA is partially located within the
Central Coast AVA and shares some of the characteristics of the larger
established AVA. For example, similar to other locations in the Central
Coast AVA, the proposed AVA is affected by cool, moist air from the
Pacific Ocean, which enters the region from San Francisco Bay via
Suisun Bay. The proposed AVA is also generally cooler and wetter than
the region to the east. However, the proposed Contra Costa AVA has some
characteristics that distinguish it from the larger, multi-county
Central Coast AVA. For instance, being a smaller region, the proposed
AVA has less
[[Page 18475]]
topographic variety than the Central Coast AVA. Additionally, being
adjacent to the shoreline of Suisun Bay, the proposed AVA is more
directly exposed to cool marine air than other regions of the Central
Coast AVA, such as the Paso Robles AVA (27 CFR 9.84), which is farther
inland and, according to T.D. ATF-216, receives its marine air via the
Salinas River, which empties into Monterey Bay.
Proposed Modification of the San Francisco Bay AVA
As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed Contra
Costa AVA also requested an expansion of the established San Francisco
Bay AVA. The San Francisco Bay AVA is located to the west of the
proposed Contra Costa AVA and overlaps the western third of the
proposed AVA. In order to eliminate the partial overlap and account for
viticultural similarities, the petition proposed moving the eastern
boundary of the San Francisco Bay AVA farther to the east to encompass
the entire proposed Contra Costa AVA.
Currently, the San Francisco Bay AVA boundary in the vicinity of
the proposed Contra Costa AVA and the proposed expansion area follows a
straight line drawn from the summit of Mount Diablo northwest to the
summit of Mulligan Hill, which is east of the city of Concord. The
boundary then proceeds northwest in a straight line to the southern
shoreline of Suisun Bay near the Seal Islands.
The proposed boundary modification would move the San Francisco Bay
AVA boundary east so that it would be concurrent with the boundary of
the proposed Contra Costa AVA and entirely encompass the proposed AVA.
The proposed boundary modification would begin at the point where the
current San Francisco Bay AVA boundary intersects the summit of Mount
Diablo. From there, the boundary would become concurrent with the
southern boundary of the proposed Contra Costa AVA, proceeding west in
a straight line to the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and the 680-
foot elevation contour. The proposed expansion boundary would then
continue to follow the proposed Contra Costa AVA boundary in a
counterclockwise direction, to the intersection of Bethel Island Road
and Dutch Slough. The proposed boundary would continue following the
proposed Contra Costa AVA boundary west along the shoreline of Dutch
Slough, Big Break, New York Slough, and Suisun Bay, to the point where
both the proposed expansion boundary and the proposed Contra Costa AVA
boundary intersect with the current San Francisco Bay AVA boundary at
the benchmark BM15 along the shoreline of Suisun Bay, near the Seal
Islands. The proposal would increase the size of the San Francisco Bay
AVA by approximately 109,955 acres.
The expansion petition included evidence that the name ``San
Francisco Bay'' applies to the eastern region of Contra Costa County,
which includes the proposed expansion area. For example, the
Association of Bay Area Governments includes the Contra Costa County
government as well as the governments of cities within the proposed
expansion area, including Brentwood and Antioch.\18\ Another example is
that the Brentwood California Irrigation Management Information System
(CIMIS) weather station is identified on the CIMIS website as being in
the ``San Francisco Bay Region.'' \19\ The expansion also noted that an
exhibit to the petition in T.D. ATF-407 included a listing of the
``Largest Bay Area Wineries'' from the San Francisco Business
Times.\20\ The list included Cline Cellars, which is located in the
city of Oakley, within the proposed expansion area. Finally the
expansion petition states that T.D. ATF-407 also included a map titled
``Bay Area Place Names,'' which included the cities of Pittsburg,
Antioch, Brentwood, and Bryon, which are all located in the proposed
expansion area.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ <a href="https://abag.ca.gov/about-abag/what-we-do/our-members">https://abag.ca.gov/about-abag/what-we-do/our-members</a>.
\19\ See Exhibit U to the petition, which is posted within
Docket No. TTB-2023-0004 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\20\ Included in the expansion petition as Exhibit V; see Docket
No. TTB-2023-0004 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
\21\ Included in the expansion petition as Exhibit X see Docket
No. TTB-2023-0004 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition claims that the region of the proposed expansion area
has a climate that is similar to that of the established San Francisco
Bay AVA and cooler than the Central Valley to the east. The petition
states that T.D. ATF-407 identified the San Francisco Bay AVA as
Regions I through III on the Winkler scale,\22\ indicating GDD
accumulations of 3,500 (when calculated using degrees Fahrenheit) or
less. The city of Livermore, which is within the San Francisco Bay AVA,
was said to have a GDD accumulation of 3,400. The Central Valley, which
is east of both the San Francisco Bay AVA and the proposed expansion
area, was described as Region V, indicating GDD accumulations over
4,000. The expansion petition notes that Winkler's General Viticulture,
which was cited in T.D. ATF-407, indicated that the cities of Antioch
and Brentwood, which are located in the proposed expansion area, were
identified with GDD accumulations of 4,200 and 4,100, respectively,
which may have explained their exclusion from the original San
Francisco Bay AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1974), pages 61-64. In the Winkler
climate classification system, annual heat accumulation during the
growing season, measured in annual GDDs, defines climatic regions.
One GDD accumulates for each degree Fahrenheit that a day's mean
temperature is above 50 degrees F, the minimum temperature required
for grapevine growth. The Winkler scale regions are as follows:
Region Ia, 1,500-2,000 GDDs; Region Ib, 2,000-2,500 GDDs; Region II,
2,500-3,000 GDDs; Region III, 3,000-3,500 GDDs; Region IV, 3,500-
4,000 GDDs; Region V, 4,000-4,900 GDDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expansion petition notes that current calculation of GDDs
suggest that portions of the San Francisco Bay AVA have GDD
accumulations that would place them in Region IV. For example, using
climate normals from 1981-2010 and the same Winkler calculation method,
the city of Livermore is 3,663, which would categorize it as Region IV.
Similarly, using 1981-2010 data and the Winkler calculation method for
the city of Brentwood, which is within the proposed expansion area,
results in 3,801 GDDs, which also categorizes it within Region IV.
Calculations for the city of Antioch resulted in 4,020 GDDs, which is
within the Region V category. However, GDD accumulations for all three
locations are still significantly lower than within the Central Valley
city of Modesto, which has a GDD accumulation of 4,676. The petition
notes that these more recent GDD calculations are not to suggest that
Livermore should be removed from the San Francisco Bay AVA but rather
that earlier figures may be outdated or misleading, due to climate
change and shortcomings in using Winkler GDD calculations as a tool for
analyzing marine influence from San Francisco Bay.
T.D. ATF-407 stated that the San Francisco Bay AVA has
precipitation amounts that are lower than the regions to the north and
higher than locations in the Central Valley to the east. The expansion
petition provided data suggesting that the same is true for the
proposed expansion area. The 1981-2010 climate normals showed that
annual precipitation in the city of Livermore, within the San Francisco
Bay AVA, was 387 mm. Precipitation amounts within Brentwood and
Antioch, within the proposed expansion area, were 326 mm and 336 mm,
respectively (approximately 12 and 14 inches). Although these
precipitation amounts are lower than the amount for
[[Page 18476]]
Livermore, the differences between these amounts and amounts in regions
to the north of the San Francisco Bay AVA are even greater. For
example, the cities of Napa, Petaluma, and Sonoma had precipitation
amounts of 512 mm, 677 mm, and 798 mm, respectively. Additionally, the
expansion petition notes that an exhibit in the original San Francisco
Bay AVA petition showed the city of Antioch as having precipitation
amounts of 13 inches, which is equivalent to the amount shown in the
same exhibit for the city of San Jose, within the San Francisco Bay
AVA, suggesting that precipitation amounts in Antioch were not a reason
to exclude it from the San Francisco Bay AVA.\23\ Finally, the
Brentwood and Antioch precipitation amounts from 1981-2010 are also
higher than the Central Valley locations of Fresno and Los Banos, which
received amounts of 292 mm and 253 mm, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The table was included as Exhibit Q in the original
petition and is also included as Exhibit Y to the expansion
petition, which are both posted in Docket TTB-2023-0004 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Modification of the Central Coast AVA Boundary
As previously noted, the petition to establish the proposed Contra
Costa AVA also requested an expansion of the established Central Coast
AVA. The proposed Contra Costa AVA is located along the eastern
boundary of the Central Coast AVA. The western third of the proposed
AVA (that is, the region encompassing the city of Concord and points
west) would, if established, be located within the current boundary of
the Central Coast AVA. However, unless the boundary of the Central
Coast AVA is modified, the remaining two-thirds of the proposed AVA
would be outside the Central Coast AVA. If approved, the proposed
Central Coast AVA expansion would place the proposed Contra Costa AVA
entirely within the Central Coast AVA.
Currently, the Central Coast AVA boundary in the vicinity of the
proposed Contra Costa AVA and the proposed expansion area is concurrent
with the current boundary of the San Francisco Bay AVA. The boundary
follows a straight line drawn northwest to southeast from the southern
shoreline of Suisun Bay near the Seal Islands to the summit of Mulligan
Hill, which is east of the city of Concord. The boundary then follows a
straight line southeast from Mulligan Hill to the summit of Mount
Diablo, which is south of the proposed Contra Costa AVA, and then
continues southeast in a straight line to the summit of Brushy Peak.
The proposed boundary modification would move the Central Coast AVA
boundary east so that it would be concurrent with the boundary of the
proposed Contra Costa AVA and entirely encompass the proposed AVA. The
proposed boundary modification would begin at the point where the
current Central Coast boundary intersects the benchmark BM15 along the
shoreline of Suisun Bay, near the Seal Islands. From there, the
proposed boundary would become concurrent with the northern boundary of
the proposed Contra Costa AVA, continuing east along the shoreline of
Suisun Bay, New York Slough, Big Break, and Dutch Slough to the
intersection of the shoreline of Dutch Slough with Bethel Island Road.
The proposed Central Coast AVA boundary would then continue to follow
the proposed Contra Costa AVA boundary in a clockwise motion to the
point where both boundaries rejoin the current Central Coast AVA
boundary at the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and the 680-foot
elevation contour, southeast of the city of Concord. The proposed
boundary modification would add 109,955 acres to the Central Coast AVA,
an approximate 1.1 percent increase.
The expansion petition included evidence that, although only a
portion of Contra Costa County was originally included in the Central
Coast AVA, the name ``Central Coast'' applies to the region of the
county that is within the proposed expansion area, as well. For
example, the web page for WineSearcher.Com states that Contra Costa
County is in ``California's Central Coast AVA.'' \24\ The website lists
wines from grapes grown in the eastern portion of Contra Costa County,
including wines from Cline Cellars and Viano Vineyards. The web page
does not distinguish between the western portion of Contra Costa
County, which is in the Central Coast AVA, and the eastern portion,
which is not. Although the eastern portion of the county is not
currently within the Central Coast AVA and none of the wines from that
region use ``Central Coast'' as an appellation of origin, the inclusion
of wines from the eastern portion of Contra Costa County suggests that
wine industry members and consumers associate the entire county with
the name ``Central Coast.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ <a href="https://www.wine-searcher.com/regions-contra+costa+county">https://www.wine-searcher.com/regions-contra+costa+county</a>.
See also Exhibit O to the petition as posted within Docket No. TTB-
2023-0004 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expansion petition also notes that California law associates
the region of the proposed AVA with the ``Central Coast'' name when it
states, ``Only dry wine produced entirely from grapes grown within the
Counties of Sonoma, * * *, Contra Costa, * * * and Marin may be labeled
with the words `California central coast dry wine.' '' \25\ The
petition notes that TTB would not allow ``Central Coast'' as an
appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown
outside the boundaries as described in 27 CFR 9.75, but the California
the statute establishes an historical association between ``Central
Coast'' and the entirety of Contra Costa County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ California Business and Professional Code Sec. 25236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expansion petition also notes that the California Mid-State
Fair held a Central Coast Wine Competition ``to promote the quality and
style of wines being produced on the Central Coast.'' \26\ Wines from
Contra Costa County were eligible to enter, with no distinction being
made between wines made within the portion of the county within the
Central Coast AVA and the portion outside the AVA. The petition states
that the inclusion of wines from anywhere in the county demonstrates
yet another association between the entire Contra Costa County and the
term ``Central Coast.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ <a href="https://centralcoastwinecomp.com/2020/03/30/registration-opens-for-the-2020-central-coast-wine-competition">https://centralcoastwinecomp.com/2020/03/30/registration-opens-for-the-2020-central-coast-wine-competition</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the expansion petition notes that the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management's Central Coast Field Office includes all of Contra Costa
County in its Central Coast administrative unit,\27\ further suggesting
that the name ``Central Coast'' does not refer only to the western
portion of the county that is currently within the Central Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Exhibits P and Q to the petition as posted within
Docket No. TTB-2023-0004 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expansion petition claims that the proposed Central Coast AVA
expansion area has features that are similar to the primary
distinguishing feature of the Central Coast AVA listed in T.D. ATF-216,
namely a marine-influenced climate. The petition included GDD data from
Brentwood, which is within the proposed Central Coast AVA expansion
area; Clayton, Concord, and Walnut Creek, which are currently within
the Central Coast AVA; and Jersey Island, which is northeast of the
proposed expansion area and not located within any AVA. The petition
also included data from stations in Livermore and Concord, which are
also
[[Page 18477]]
within the Central Coast AVA, but because the data was from less than 3
years, TTB is not including it in this table. The GDD data from the
other locations is shown in the following table.
Table 3--Growing Degree Day Accumulations From Within Central Coast AVA and Proposed Expansion Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location 2019 2018 2017 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brentwood....................................... 4,275 4,141 4,175 4,090
Clayton......................................... N/A 4,489 4,656 4,097
Walnut Creek-Lakewood........................... 4,211 4,025 4,417 N/A
Jersey Island................................... 3,961 3,955 4,047 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GDD accumulations from within the proposed expansion area are
within the range of GDD accumulations from locations within the Central
Coast AVA, suggesting a similar climate. The GDD accumulations from the
proposed expansion area are also higher than those from Jersey Island,
which is outside both the proposed expansion area and the Central Coast
AVA.
The expansion petition also notes that T.D. ATF-407, which
published in the Federal Register on January 20, 1999 (64 FR 3015),
expanded the Central Coast AVA. The Sunset Magazine Western Garden
Book's growing zones were cited in that final rule as evidence that the
expansion area should be included in the Central Coast AVA. T.D. ATF-
407 states that the Central Coast AVA, at that time, included growing
zones 7, 14, 15, 16, and 17. The current expansion petition notes that
the proposed expansion area is in zone 14, which is described as
``Northern California's inland areas with some ocean influence.'' \28\
The proposed expansion area's placement in zone 14 further indicates a
marine-influenced climate similar to that of the established Central
Coast AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ <a href="https://www.sunsetwesterngardencollection.com/climate-zones/zone/central-california">https://www.sunsetwesterngardencollection.com/climate-zones/zone/central-california</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to establish the approximately
167,146-acre ``Contra Costa'' AVA and to concurrently modify the
boundaries of the existing San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs
merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this document.
TTB is proposing the establishment of the new AVA and the
modification of the existing San Francisco Bay AVA as one action.
Accordingly, if TTB establishes the proposed Contra Costa AVA, then the
proposed boundary modification of the San Francisco Bay AVA would be
approved concurrently. If TTB does not establish the proposed AVA, then
the San Francisco Bay AVA boundary would not be modified.
Furthermore, TTB is proposing the establishment of the new AVA and
the modification of the existing Central Coast AVAs as separate
actions, per the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, if TTB
establishes the proposed AVA, the Central Coast AVA would be modified.
However, if TTB does not establish the new AVA, the Central Coast AVA
may still be modified as proposed in this document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA
and the boundary modifications of the two established AVAs in the
proposed regulatory text published at the end of this document.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed
Contra Costa AVA boundary and the proposed boundary modifications of
the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs on the AVA Map Explorer on
the TTB website, at <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer</a>.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85
percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area
represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions
listed in Sec. 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)).
If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name
appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the
bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in
a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new
label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an
AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July
7, 1986. See Sec. 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``Contra Costa,''
will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under Sec.
4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the
proposed regulation clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers
using the name ``Contra Costa'' in a brand name, including a trademark,
or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, would have
to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an
appellation of origin if this proposed rule is adopted as a final rule.
TTB notes that the phrase ``Contra Costa County'' is already recognized
as a term of viticultural significance by virtue of being the name of a
county. Therefore, labels using ``Contra Costa County'' as an
appellation of origin would not be affected by the establishment of
this AVA.
If approved, the establishment of the proposed Contra Costa AVA and
the concurrent expansions of the San Francisco Bay AVA and the Central
Coast AVA would allow vintners to use ``Contra Costa,'' ``San Francisco
Bay,'' and ``Central Coast'' as AVA appellations of origin for wines
made primarily from grapes grown in the proposed Contra Costa AVA if
the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
Similarly, if the Central Coast AVA boundary is modified without the
establishment of the proposed Contra Costa AVA, vintners would be able
to use ``Central Coast'' as an AVA appellation of origin for wines made
primarily within the proposed expansion area if the wines meet the
eligibility requirements for the appellation.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on
whether TTB should establish the proposed Contra Costa AVA and
concurrently modify the boundaries of the established San
[[Page 18478]]
Francisco Bay and Central Coast AVAs. TTB is interested in receiving
comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary,
topography, and other required information submitted in support of the
Contra Costa AVA petition. In addition, given the proposed AVA's
partial location within the existing San Francisco Bay and Central
Coast AVAs, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence
submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the
proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing AVA. TTB
is also interested in comments on whether the geographic features of
the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the San Francisco Bay and
Central Coast AVAs that the proposed Contra Costa AVA should not be
part of the established AVAs. Please provide any available specific
information in support of your comments.
TTB also invites comments on the proposed expansion of the existing
Central Coast and San Francisco Bay AVAs. TTB is interested in comments
on whether the evidence provided in the petition sufficiently
demonstrates that the proposed expansion area is similar enough to the
San Francisco Bay AVA and the Central Coast AVA to be included in them.
Comments should address the pertinent information that supports or
opposes the proposed Central Coast AVA and San Francisco Bay AVA
boundary expansions.
Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the
proposed Contra Costa AVA on wine labels that include the term ``Contra
Costa'' as discussed above under Impact on Current Wine Labels, TTB is
particularly interested in comments regarding whether there will be a
conflict between the proposed area name and currently used brand names.
If a commenter believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should
describe the nature of that conflict, including any anticipated
negative economic impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on
an existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in
receiving suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by
adopting a modified or different name for the proposed AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this proposal by using one of the
following methods:
<bullet> Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the
online comment form posted with this document within Docket No. TTB-
2023-0004 on ``<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. A direct link to that docket is available
under Notice No. 223 on the TTB website at <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml</a>. Supplemental files may be attached to comments
submitted via <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. For complete instructions on how to use
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the
top of the page.
<bullet> U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 223 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.
Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own
behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If
you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other
entity, your comment must include the entity's name as well as your
name and position title. If you comment via <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, please
enter the entity's name in the ``Organization'' blank of the online
comment form. If you comment via postal mail, please submit your
entity's comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for
public disclosure.
Public Disclosure
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, selected
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2023-0004 on the Federal e-
rulemaking portal, <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. A
direct link to that docket is available on the TTB website at <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml</a> under Notice No. 223. You may
also reach the relevant docket through the <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> search page
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For instructions on how to use
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the
top of the page.
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all
address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous
attachments or material that it considers unsuitable for posting.
You may also obtain copies of this proposed rule, all related
petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or
mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal at 20 cents per
8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies
of USGS maps or any similarly-sized documents that may be included as
part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings
Division by email using the web form at <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd">https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd</a>, or by telephone at 202-453-1039, ext. 175, to request copies of
comments or other materials.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived
from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a
proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it requires no regulatory
assessment.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this document.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend
title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
[[Page 18479]]
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Amend Sec. 9.75 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(42);
0
b. Removing the ``.'' at the end of paragraph (b)(43) and adding a
``;'' in its place;
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(44) through (55);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(6);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(43) as paragraphs
(c)(23) through (c)(59);
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(22).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 9.75 Central Coast.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(44) Benicia, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(45) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(46) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(47) Antioch North, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(48) Jersey Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(49) Bouldin Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(50) Woodward Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(51) Clifton Court Forebay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(52) Byron Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(53) Tassajara, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018;
(54) Antioch South, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018; and
(55) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 2018.
(c) * * *
(4) From this point, the boundary proceeds east along the shoreline
of Alameda County and Contra Costa County across the Richmond, San
Quentin, Mare Island, Benicia (2018 edition), Vine Hill (2018 edition),
Honker Bay (2018 edition), and Antioch North maps and onto the Jersey
Island map to the intersection of the shoreline with Bethel Island
Road.
(5) Proceed southeast in a straight line 0.7 mile to the
intersection of Wells Road and Sandmound Road.
(6) Proceed northeast in a straight line 2.7 miles, crossing onto
the Bouldin Island map, to the northernmost point of Holland Tract
Road.
(7) Proceed south 1.9 miles along Holland Tract Road, crossing onto
the Woodward Island map, to the road's intersection with the 10-foot
elevation contour.
(8) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line 4.1 miles to the
intersection of Orwood Road and the Mokelumne Aqueduct.
(9) Proceed south-southwest 5.5 miles, crossing onto the Clifton
Court Forebay map, to the stream gauging station on Italian Slough,
just west of Widdows Island and the shared Contra Costa-San Joaquin
County line.
(10) Proceed due west in a straight line to the western shore of
Italian Slough, then proceed southwesterly along the shore of Italian
Slough to its confluence with Brushy Creek.
(11) Proceed westerly along Brushy Creek, crossing onto the Byron
Hot Springs (2018 edition) map and continuing southwesterly along the
creek to its intersection with Vasco Road.
(12) Proceed northwest in a straight line 4.3 miles to the
intersection of Kellogg Creek and Walnut Boulevard.
(13) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line 2.9 miles, crossing
onto the Tassajara (2018 edition) map, to the intersection of Marsh
Creek and Miwok Trail.
(14) Proceed northwesterly along Marsh Creek 2.4 miles, crossing
onto the Antioch South map, to the creek's intersection with Deer
Valley Road.
(15) Proceed northerly along Deer Valley Road 3.1 miles to its
intersection with Chadbourne Road.
(16) Proceed northwest in a straight line 0.6 mile to the
southwestern terminus of Tour Way.
(17) Proceed northwest in a straight line 3 miles to the
intersection of Oil Canyon Trail, Stewartville Trail, and Chadbourne
Road.
(18) Proceed northeasterly along the Stewartville Trail 1.9 miles
to its intersection with the Contra Loma Trail.
(19) Proceed northwest in a straight line 2.5 miles to the
intersection of Somersville Road and Donlan Boulevard.
(20) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line 2.5 miles, crossing
onto the Clayton (2018 edition) map, to the intersection of Nortonville
Road and Kirker Pass Road.
(21) Proceed southwesterly along Kirker Pass Road approximately 2.5
miles to its intersection with Hess Road.
(22) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line to the 3,849-foot
summit of Mt. Diablo.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 9.157 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(46);
0
b. Removing the ``.'' at the end of paragraph (b)(47) and adding a
``;'' in its place;
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(48) through (b)(58);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(22) through (c)(24);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(44) as paragraphs
(c)(40) through (c)(59); and
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (c)(25) through (c)(39).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 9.157 San Francisco Bay.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(48) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
(49) Antioch South, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
(50) Tassajara, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
(51) Byron Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
(52) Clifton Court Forebay, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
(53) Woodward Island, California, scale 1:24,000; 2018;
(54) Bouldin Island, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
(55) Jersey Island, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
(56) Antioch North, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018;
(57) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018; and
(58) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, 2018.
(c) * * *
(22) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line
to the intersection of Kirker Pass Road and Hess Road on the Clayton
(2018 edition) map.
(23) Proceed northeasterly along Kirker Pass Road to its
intersection with Nortonville Road.
(24) Proceed east-northeast in a straight line for 2.5 miles,
crossing onto the Antioch South map, to the intersection of Somersville
Road and Donlan Boulevard.
(25) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line for 2.5 miles to the
intersection of the Stewartville Trail and the Contra Loma Trail.
(26) Proceed southwesterly along Stewartsville Trail for 1.9 miles
to the intersection of Oil Canyon Trail, Stewartsville Trail, and
Chadbourne Road.
[[Page 18480]]
(27) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 3 miles to the
southern terminus of Tour Way.
(28) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 0.6 miles to the
intersection of Chadbourne Road and Deer Valley Road.
(29) Proceed southerly along Deer Valley Road for 3.1 miles to its
intersection with Marsh Creek.
(30) Proceed southeasterly along Marsh Creek for 2.4 miles,
crossing onto the Tassajara (2018 edition) map, to the creek's
intersection with Miwok Trail.
(31) Proceed north-northeast in a straight line for 2.9 miles,
crossing onto the Byron Hot Springs (2018 edition) map, to the
intersection of Kellogg Creek and Walnut Boulevard.
(32) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 4.3 miles to the
intersection of Brushy Creek and Vasco Road.
(33) Proceed northeasterly along Brushy Creek, crossing onto the
Clifton Court Forebay map, to the confluence of Brushy Creek with the
western shore of Italian Slough to a point due west of the stream
gauging station on Italian Slough, just west of Widdows Island and the
shared Contra Costa-San Joaquin County line.
(34) Proceed due east to the stream gauging station, then proceed
north-northeast for 5.5 miles, crossing onto the Woodward Island map,
to the intersection of the Mokelumne Aqueduct and Orwood Road.
(35) Proceed north-northwest in a straight line for 4.1 miles to
the intersection of Holland Tract Road and the 10-foot elevation
contour.
(36) Proceed north for 1.9 miles along Holland Tract Road, crossing
onto the Bouldin Island map, and continuing to the northernmost point
of Holland Tract Road.
(37) Proceed southeast in a straight line for 2.7 miles, crossing
onto the Jersey Island map, to the intersection of Wells Road and
Sandmound Road.
(38) Proceed northwest in a straight line for 0.7 mile to the
intersection of Bethel Island Road and the shoreline of Dutch Slough
Road.
(39) Proceed westerly along the shoreline of Dutch Slough and Big
Break, crossing onto the Antioch North map, and continuing westerly
along the shoreline of New York Slough, crossing onto the Honker Bay
(2018 edition) map, and continuing westerly along the shoreline and
onto the Vine Hill (2018 edition) map to the intersection of the
shoreline and Interstate 680 at the Benicia-Martinez Bridge.
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec. 9.__ to read as follows:
Sec. 9.__ Contra Costa.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
section is ``Contra Costa''. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter,
``Contra Costa'' is a term of viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The 15 United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the
Contra Costa viticultural area are titled:
(1) Antioch North, California, 2018;
(2) Antioch South, California, 2018;
(3) Benicia, California, 2018;
(4) Bouldin Island, California, 2018;
(5) Briones Valley, California, 2018;
(6) Byron Hot Springs, California, 2018;
(7) Clayton, California, 2018;
(8) Clifton Court Forebay, California, 2018;
(9) Jersey Island, California, 2018;
(10) Honker Bay, California, 2018;
(11) Tassajara, California, 2018;
(12) Vine Hill, California, 2018;
(13) Walnut Creek, California, 1995;
(14) Walnut Creek, California, 2018; and
(15) Woodward Island, California, 2018.
(c) Boundary. The Contra Costa viticultural area is located in
Contra Costa County, California. The boundary of the Contra Costa
viticultural area is as described as follows:
(1) The beginning point is on the Bouldin Island map at the
northernmost point of Holland Tract Road. From the beginning point,
proceed south 1.9 miles along Holland Tract Road, crossing onto the
Woodward Island map, to the intersection of the road with the 10-foot
elevation contour; then
(2) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line 4.1 miles to the
intersection of Orwood Road and the Mokelumne Aqueduct; then
(3) Proceed south-southwest in a straight line 5.5 miles, crossing
onto the Clifton Court Forebay map, to the stream gauging station on
Italian Slough, just west of the Widdows Island and the shared Contra
Costa-San Joaquim County line; then
(4) Proceed due west in a straight line to the western shore of
Italian Slough, then proceed southwesterly along the western shore
Italian Slough to its confluence with Brushy Creek; then
(5) Proceed westerly along Brushy Creek, crossing onto the Byron
Hot Springs map and continuing southwesterly along the creek to its
intersection with Vasco Road; then
(6) Proceed northwest in a straight line 4.3 miles to the
intersection of Kellogg Creek and Walnut Boulevard; then
(7) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line 2.9 miles, crossing
onto the Tassajara map, to the intersection of Marsh Creek and Miwok
Trail; then
(8) Proceed northwesterly along Marsh Creek 2.4 miles, crossing
onto the Antioch South map, to the creek's intersection with Deer
Valley Road; then
(9) Proceed northerly along Deer Valley Road 3.1 miles to its
intersection with Chadbourne Road; then
(10) Proceed northwest in a straight line 0.6 mile to the
southwestern terminus of Tour Way; then
(11) Proceed northwest in a straight line 3 miles to the
intersection of Oil Canyon Trail, Stewartville Trail, and Chadbourne
Road; then
(12) Proceed northeasterly along Stewartville Trail 1.9 miles to
its intersection with the Contra Loma Trail; then
(13) Proceed northwest in a straight line 2.5 miles to the
intersection of Somersville Road and Donlan Boulevard; then
(14) Proceed west-southwest in a straight line 2.5 miles, crossing
onto the Clayton map, to the intersection of Nortonville Road and
Kirker Pass Road; then
(15) Proceed southwesterly along Kirker Pass Road 5 miles to its
intersection with Alberta Way; then
(16) Proceed southwest in a straight line 1.5 miles to the
intersection of Buckeye Trail, Blue Oak Trail, and Lime Ridge Trail;
then
(17) Proceed south-southeast in a straight line 2.6 miles to the
intersection of Arroyo Cerro Del and the 400-foot elevation contour
just east of North Gate Road; then
(18) Proceed northwest in a straight line 2.5 miles, crossing onto
the Walnut Creek map (2018 edition), to the intersection of Brodia Way
and La Casa Via; then
(19) Proceed west-northwest in a straight line, crossing onto the
Walnut Creek (1995 edition) map, and continue 3.1 miles on the 1995
edition map to the marked 781-foot peak south of the shared Lafayette-
Walnut Creek corporate boundary line and north of an unnamed light-duty
road known locally as Peaceful Lane; then
(20) Proceed northwest in a straight line 1.7 miles to the 833-foot
peak marked ``Hump 2''; then
(21) Proceed north-northwest 0.5 mile to the water tank (known
locally as the Withers Reservoir) at the end of an unnamed light-duty
road known locally as Kim Road, in the Ca[ntilde]ada del Hambre y Las
Bolsas Land Grant; then
(22) Proceed northwest in a straight line 3 miles, crossing onto
the Briones Valley map, to the intersection of Alhambra Creek Road and
Alhambra Valley Road; then
[[Page 18481]]
(23) Proceed northwest in a straight line 4.1 miles, crossing onto
the Benicia map, to the intersection of Highway 4 and Cummings Skyway;
then
(24) Proceed north-northwest in a straight line 1.8 miles to the
intersection of Carquinez Scenic Drive and an unnamed road known
locally as Canyon Lake Drive; then
(25) Proceed northeasterly in a straight line 0.6 mile to the
marked post office in Port Costa; then
(26) Proceed southeast in a straight line 0.9 mile to the first
unnamed road that crosses the railroad tracks and intersects with the
shoreline at Little Bull Valley; then
(27) Proceed easterly along the shoreline approximately 38.3 miles,
crossing over the Vine Hill, Honker Bay, and Antioch North maps and
onto the Jersey Island map to Bethel Island Road; then
(28) Proceed southeast in a straight line 0.7 mile to the
intersection of Wells Road and Sandmound Boulevard; then
(29) Proceed northeast in a straight line 2.7 miles, crossing onto
the Bouldin Island map and returning to the beginning point.
Signed: March 17, 2023.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.
Approved: March 20, 2023.
Thomas C. West, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2023-06350 Filed 3-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 29, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.