[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70866-70878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29519]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2008-0009; T.D. TTB-97; Re: Notice Nos. 90 and 91]
RIN 1513-AB57


Expansions of the Russian River Valley and Northern Sonoma 
Viticultural Areas

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Treasury decision expands the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area in Sonoma County, California, by 14,044 acres, and 
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area in Sonoma County, California, by 
44,244 acres. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to 
better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to 
better identify wines they may purchase.

DATES: Effective Date: December 16, 2011.

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 202-4453-1039, ext. 275.

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 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 
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) sets 
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the 
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas and lists 
the approved American 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 having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of 
the regulations and a name and 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 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 grape-growing region 
as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to 
request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.12 of 
the TTB regulations prescribes standards for petitions for the 
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas. Such 
petitions must include the following:
     Evidence that the area within the viticultural area 
boundary is nationally or locally known by the viticultural area name 
specified in the petition;
     An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of 
the viticultural area;
     A narrative description of the features of the 
viticultural area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, 
soils, physical features, and elevation, that make it distinctive and 
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the viticultural area 
boundary;
     A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey 
(USGS) map(s) showing the location of the viticultural area, with the 
boundary of the viticultural area clearly drawn thereon; and
     A detailed narrative description of the viticultural area 
boundary based on USGS map markings.

Publication of Notice No. 90

    On August 20, 2008, TTB published Notice No. 90, a notice of 
proposed rulemaking, in the Federal Register (73 FR 49123) regarding 
the proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area 
(27 CFR 9.66) in Sonoma County, California. TTB undertook that action 
in response to a petition filed by Gallo Family Vineyards, which owns a 
vineyard near the southern end of the proposed expansion area. As 
discussed below, TTB also proposed in Notice No. 90 to expand the 
existing Northern Sonoma viticultural area (27 CFR 9.70) to encompass 
all of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, including its 
proposed expansion area.
    Specifically, the petition proposed a 14,044-acre expansion of the 
Russian River Valley viticultural area, which would increase the 
existing viticultural area's acreage by approximately 9 percent, to 
169,028 acres. The petitioner explained that approximately 550 acres of 
the proposed expansion area were planted to grapes at the time of the 
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 48812) on 
October 21, 1983. It was expanded by 767 acres in T.D. TTB-7, published 
in the Federal Register (68 FR 67367) on December 2,

[[Page 70867]]

2003, and again by 30,200 acres in T.D. TTB-32, published in the 
Federal Register (70 FR 53297) on September 8, 2005. Although T.D. TTB-
32 states that the viticultural area covered 126,600 acres after the 
2005 expansion, 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. 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 of the 
significant distinguishing features of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. The evidence submitted in support of the proposed 
expansion is summarized below.

Name Evidence

    The petition 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 Russian River 
Valley 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 
petition 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 included several pieces of evidence showing the 
expansion area's inclusion in the Russian River watershed. A submitted 
map shows that almost all of 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 petition notes that the water 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 also included 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 includes both the current 
viticultural area and the area covered by the proposed expansion.
    The petitioner submitted a letter from the RRWA that 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 portion of the boundary 
of the proposed expansion area. The petition notes that the State 
installed both the requested sign as well as an additional sign at 
another point on the southern portion of the boundary of the proposed 
expansion area.
    Also submitted with the petition were 2002 water assessment data 
published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This information 
includes the expansion area in its assessment of the Russian River 
watershed. Finally, the petitioner included 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 petition 
states that these documents illustrate a shared history of grape 
growing in the proposed expansion area and the current viticultural 
area. For example, an 1893 survey compares the yields of individual 
grape growers in the current 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 petition 
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, the defunct winery 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 petition, the 2005 expansion created an artificial 
line for what became the southeast portion of the boundary. Proceeding 
south down the US 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 portion of the 
boundary of the current Russian River Valley viticultural area. At a 
point where the current southern portion of the boundary now ends and 
the boundary line 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 US 101, 
eventually meeting the southeast corner of the existing boundary, 
adding an area

[[Page 70868]]

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 petition 
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 petition.
    The petitioner provided a report showing the effect of the fog on 
the climate of the current viticultural area and the 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 [ordm] F.

    Additionally, the petitioner provided 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 petition, 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 grape-growing 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 from 2,000 to 2,800 degree days.
    The petition 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 petition argues that, at the 
time of the 2005 expansion, TTB recognized that more current 
information had superseded the information in the 1986 report. Further, 
it is asserted in the petition that the climate information included in 
the exhibits shows that the proposed expansion area actually has a 
coastal cool climate.
    Using the Winkler system, the petitioner provided 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, which is located in the southern part of the proposed 
expansion area, and the petitioner's Laguna Ranch and MacMurray Ranch 
Vineyards, both of which are located in the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area as established in 1983. For the petitioner's 
vineyards, the data are an average of the degree days for the three 
year period of 1996-1998; for vineyards that were added to the Russian 
River Valley viticultural area as part of the 2005 expansion, the data 
are the same 2001 data used by TTB in establishing the 2005 expansion 
in T.D. TTB-32. The table is reproduced below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Vineyard                      Annual degree days                      Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 petition 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, and notes the consistency of the degree day data for the 
vineyards located within the 1983 establishment of the viticultural 
area, the 2005 expansion, and the current proposed expansion area. The 
petition concludes that this degree day data show that the proposed 
expansion area has the same climate as the current Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. Further, the petitioner provided a raster map 
showing that annual average degree days in the proposed expansion area 
are within the same range as that of 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 at http://www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/index.html).
    The petition also notes that 940 was the annual average number of 
hours between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit at the Two Rock Ranch 
Vineyard during the April through October growing season from 1996-
1998. Based on the

[[Page 70869]]

``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 petition includes a report, written at the request of the 
petitioner, which includes a detailed analysis of the climate of the 
proposed expansion area. The petitioner requested expert commentary on 
the proposed expansion area, and the petition states that the report's 
author, Patrick L. Shabram, geographic consultant, has extensive 
experience in Sonoma County viticulture.
    In the report, Mr. Shabram disputes the idea that the proposed 
expansion area is in a marine climate zone and cites three main factors 
in support of his position. 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 petition, the southernmost portion of the proposed 
expansion area is on the ``Merced Hills'' of the Wilson Grove 
formation. These are gently rolling hills predominantly 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 
area. Elevations in the proposed expansion area range from 715 feet to 
75 feet above sea level, which are similar to elevations in adjoining 
areas of the current Russian River Valley viticultural area.
Soils and Geology
    The petition 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, which 
formed 3 to 5 million years ago under a shallow sea, is characterized 
by low lying, rolling hills beginning just south of the Russian River 
near Forestville, arching southeast through Sebastopol, and ending at 
Penngrove. According to the petition, the soils underlain by this 
formation are well suited to growing grapes in vineyards.
    The petition includes 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 State University, ``Practical Winery & 
Vineyard,'' September/October 2001, Vol. XXIII, No. 2.)

    The petition notes that the Wilson Grove formation underlies the 
current Russian River Valley viticultural area, but the current 
southeastern portion of its border cuts north to south through the 
formation, midway between Sebastopol and Cotati. However, the soil 
associations on either side of this southeastern portion of the current 
Russian River Valley viticultural area are identical. The Goldridge-
Cotati-Sebastopol soil association is nearly continuous throughout the 
formation. The petition states 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 petition 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. This soils association is 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. These soils are 
common in the middle and northern portions of the Santa Rosa plain, and 
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 petition 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 Lake-Reyes, 
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 noted in Notice No. 90 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 petition 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). 
Citing a brochure published by the Russian River Winegrowers 
Association, the petition notes that Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are the 
two most prominent grape varieties grown in the current 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 show 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 in the Two Rock Ranch Vineyard

[[Page 70870]]

within the proposed expansion area (see the table below). The petition 
asserts that the Brix levels for each variety at all four 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average Brix
                           Ranch                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                               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 expansion area.

    In addition to the petition evidence summarized above, the petition 
included six letters of support from area grape growers and winery 
owners. The supporters generally assert that the proposed expansion 
area has the same grape growing conditions as the current Russian River 
Valley viticultural area. The petition also included 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 expansion, TTB 
received by mail, facsimile transmission, and email more than 50 pieces 
of correspondence opposing the 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 existing Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. Several of the opponents 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, when 
discussing this opposing correspondence in Notice No. 90, also noted 
that the assertions in the correspondence were not accompanied by any 
specific data that contradicted the petitioner's submitted evidence. In 
the Comments Invited portion of Notice No. 90, TTB specifically 
indicated that comments in response to the Notice should be supported 
with specific data or other appropriate information.

Expansion of the Northern Sonoma Viticultural Area

    In Notice No. 90, TTB noted that prior to the 2005 expansion, all 
of the Russian River Valley viticultural area had been within the 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area. TTB further noted, however, that 
portions of 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) currently extend beyond the south and southeast portions of the 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area boundary line. The proposed new 
14,044-acre expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area 
similarly is outside the boundary line of the Northern Sonoma 
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, TTB also proposed in Notice No. 90 a 
southern and southeastern expansion 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. As a result, the Northern 
Sonoma viticultural area would increase in size by 44,244 acres to 
394,088 acres, or by 9 percent. The following information was 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 20561:

    * * * 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 these 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 (51 FR 
30352) on August 26, 1986 and, again, by T.D. ATF-300, published in the 
Federal Register (55 FR 32400) on August 9, 1990.
    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 non-viticultural 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), in 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 Notice No. 90. Further, the SCC-RCD maps show that the 
southern

[[Page 70871]]

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 Notice No. 90 
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 of the 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area.
    Based on the above, TTB stated in Notice No. 90 that 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 
was the subject of Notice No. 90.
    Comments on the proposed expansions were originally due on or 
before October 20, 2008. However, on October 29, 2008, in response to a 
request filed on behalf of the Russian River Valley Boundary Integrity 
Coalition, a group of area vineyards and wineries, TTB reopened the 
comment period for Notice No. 90, with comments due on or before 
December 19, 2008 (see Notice No. 91 published in the Federal Register 
at 73 FR 64286 on October 29, 2008).

Comments Received in Response to Notice No. 90

    TTB received 171 comments in response to Notice No. 90. Of those, 
26 comments support the proposal to expand the Russian River Valley and 
Northern Sonoma viticultural areas, while 133 are in opposition. The 12 
remaining comments include one request to extend the comment period, 
one request for a public hearing, three comments from the petitioner's 
consultants defending their analyses and credentials, various copies of 
media reports about the proposed rulemaking, and other comments 
requesting actions beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    The origins of comments are as follows: 109 comments are from grape 
growers and/or wineries; 26 have no identified affiliation; 13 are from 
self-described consumers; 8 are from the petitioner or its two 
consultants; 7 are from grape grower associations (Russian River Valley 
Winegrowers, Russian River Valley Boundary Integrity Coalition, Allied 
Grape Growers, and Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance); and 5 are from 
other wine professionals (writers, retailers, and educators).

Supporting Comments

    The 26 comments supporting the regulatory action proposed in Notice 
No. 90 are from: 20 area grape growers; the petitioner and its two 
consultants; Constellation Brands, Inc.; and Allied Grape Growers, a 
California wine grape marketing cooperative. Most of these commenters 
state that they support the proposal and that they believe that the 
petitioner's evidence demonstrates that the proposed expansion area 
should be considered part of the Russian River Valley AVA. In response 
to comments from opponents, the petitioner and its consultants 
submitted additional arguments and evidence to support the proposal; 
these are discussed below where appropriate.

Opposing Comments

    Comments opposing the regulatory action proposed in Notice No. 90 
are from: 78 area grape growers and wineries; all 13 of the self-
identified consumers; the membership of the Russian River Valley 
Winegrowers Association (the Association's board voted to take a 
neutral position on the expansion issue); the Russian River Valley 
Boundary Integrity Coalition (RRVBIC), which also requested a public 
hearing; and wine professionals. The most common reasons provided for 
opposing the proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area are that the proposed expansion area is not known to 
be part of the Russian River Valley and that the proposed expansion 
area has a different climate from that of the existing Russian River 
Valley viticultural area. The vast majority of opposing comments 
address only the petitioned-for expansion of the Russian River Valley; 
only a few comments specifically address the proposed expansion of the 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area. Unless otherwise noted, the opposing 
comments discussed below address only the petitioned-for Russian River 
Valley expansion.

Discussion of Comments

Name Evidence

    Many opposing commenters state that they do not believe that the 
proposed expansion area is considered part of the Russian River Valley, 
and two opposing commenters also state that the proposed expansion area 
is not part of northern Sonoma. Most of these commenters refer to the 
proposed expansion area as the Cotati or Rohnert Park areas, for two 
cities adjacent to the area, or as the Petaluma Gap, as discussed in 
more detail below.
    Seven commenters state that the proposed expansion area is 
considered part of southern Sonoma County; the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area, in contrast, is considered part of northern Sonoma 
County and is mostly encompassed by the Northern Sonoma viticultural 
area. Hector Bedolla of the RRVBIC, in his comment (numbered by TTB as 
comment 7), states that it is ``ridiculous'' to add an area ten miles 
from the Marin County line (Marin County is south of Sonoma County) to 
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area. Another commenter, Barry C. 
Lawrence (comment 118), submitted four quotes from Web sites and area 
businesses describing Cotati, Rohnert Park, and Petaluma as part of 
southern Sonoma County. Mr. Lawrence also reports polling four Cotati 
and Rohnert Park city and school officials to ask whether their area is 
in the Russian River Valley or in southern Sonoma County; according to 
Mr. Lawrence, the officials all responded ``no'' and ``yes,'' 
respectively. A few commenters note that the petitioner's vineyard in 
the proposed expansion area, Two Rock Ranch, is named for the town of 
Two Rock, which is located southwest of the proposed area; the 
commenters argue that this name shows that the area is oriented to the 
Petaluma Gap region to the southwest, rather than to the Russian River 
Valley to the north.
    A few commenters submitted historical references as evidence that 
the proposed expansion area has not historically been associated with 
the Russian River Valley. One of these, Maurice Nugent of Nugent 
Vineyards Inc. (comment 12), cited ``History of Sonoma County, 
California, 1850'' as stating, ``The lower end of this vast [Sonoma 
County] plain is Petaluma, the central portion is Santa Rosa, and the 
northern section, the Russian River Valleys.'' Mr. Nugent notes that 
the proposed expansion area is south of the current city of Santa Rosa.
    Dr. William K. Crowley, a Professor Emeritus of Geography at Sonoma 
State University in Rohnert Park, submitted a forty-one page analysis 
of the petition on behalf of the RRVBIC. This analysis (comment 120) 
included several maps and documents as name evidence. Many of these 
documents show that, in the nineteenth century, the proposed expansion 
area was part of Petaluma Township, an area considered part of southern 
Sonoma County. The Russian River Township, Dr. Crowley notes, was much 
further to the north. Dr. Crowley also provided more recent evidence in

[[Page 70872]]

the form of two USGS maps published in 1958 and 1970 that label the 
proposed expansion area as the Cotati Valley, as well as a map of 
Sonoma County winegrowing areas from a 1977 article that he wrote for 
``The California Geographer,'' which shows a Russian River Valley that 
does not include the proposed expansion area.
    Several commenters state that they found the petitioner's name 
evidence to be insufficient. Other than evidence regarding the Russian 
River watershed (discussed in more detail below), the petitioner's name 
evidence consisted only of a tourism map of the Russian River Valley, 
two letters from individuals (one a local wine historian) stating their 
views that the proposed expansion area has historically been associated 
with the Russian River Valley, and several documents regarding the 
agricultural and economic history of Sonoma County that the petitioner 
contends show the expansion area and the AVA share a similar 
agricultural and economic history.
    A few opposing commenters note that the petitioner's tourism map, 
taken from the Web site Russian River Travel.com (http://www.russianrivertravel.com/), shows nearly all of Sonoma County and 
portions of neighboring counties, so the map is therefore too general 
to be used as evidence of what is part of the Russian River Valley. One 
of these commenters, Dr. Crowley, also argues that other pages within 
the travel Web site support the view that the proposed expansion area 
is not considered part of the Russian River Valley. For example, the 
Web site's home page lists cities within the Russian River Valley that 
tourists might visit. He states that, although the list is extensive, 
``it does not include either Cotati or Rohnert Park, the towns 
partially within the petitioned area, and both part of the Russian 
River watershed, because obviously the petitioned area is not seen as 
part of the Russian River Valley.''
    Several opposing commenters state that the proposed expansion area 
does not share a similar agricultural history with the Russian River 
Valley. According to these commenters, the proposed expansion area has 
been known in recent decades for its poultry and dairy farms, while the 
Russian River Valley has historically been a fruit growing area. Before 
grapes were the dominant crop, these commenters note, the Russian River 
Valley was known for apple orchards. Commenters state that these 
differences are due to climatic differences between the two areas. 
Maurice Nugent, citing data from the 1893 phylloxera survey, states 
that the petitioned-for expansion area had far fewer vineyards at that 
time than the current viticultural area to the north.
The Petaluma Gap
    Fifty-two commenters argue that the petitioned-for expansion area 
is part of a region known as the Petaluma Gap rather than the Russian 
River Valley. The Petaluma Gap Winegrowers Alliance (comment 44), an 
association of growers and wineries formed in 2006, submitted a comment 
describing the Petaluma Gap as a distinct winegrowing area within the 
Sonoma Coast viticultural area. The Alliance submitted a map entitled 
``Sonoma Coast (Southern Section) American Viticultural Area with the 
Petaluma Gap,'' on which an area of southern Sonoma County and Northern 
Marin County is prominently labeled the ``Petaluma Gap.'' TTB observes 
that a portion of the petitioned-for expansion area and a portion of 
the current Russian River Valley viticultural area are located within 
the boundary line for the Petaluma Gap on the map. Two other 
commenters, Dr. Crowley and Dow Vineyards (comment 97), also submitted 
copies of this map to demonstrate that the proposed expansion area is 
part of the Petaluma Gap rather than Russian River Valley.
    Four commenters in favor of the proposal dispute the contention 
that the petitioned-for expansion area is known as the Petaluma Gap. 
One of these, Patrick Shabram (comment 17), states that the Petaluma 
Gap is ``an area of relatively lower hills in the Sonoma and Marin 
coastal highlands.'' He further states that ``the term `Petaluma Gap' 
is sometimes popularly used to refer to the area southwest of the 
proposed expansion and northwest of the city of Petaluma.'' In 
addition, two of these commenters (the petitioner, comment 67, and 
Cameron Sustainable Ag, LLC, comment 62) state that the Petaluma Gap 
map was recently developed by an opponent of the proposed expansion in 
an effort to discredit the expansion. These commenters also state that 
a portion of the current viticultural area is included within the map's 
boundaries for the Petaluma Gap, so the commenters contend that the map 
should not be considered valid evidence.
Russian River Watershed
    Eleven comments opposing the petitioned-for expansion note that a 
portion of the proposed expansion area (that is, part of Two Rock 
Ranch) is not within the Russian River watershed. TTB notes that the 
petition acknowledges this fact, but the petition also states that this 
portion is very small (2 percent of the proposed expansion area) and 
that a similar portion (1.43 percent) of the current Russian River 
Valley viticultural area is also not within the Russian River 
watershed.
    Thirteen commenters acknowledge that the proposed expansion area is 
(mostly) within the watershed, but these commenters note that the 
watershed is much larger than the current Russian River viticultural 
area and extends several miles north into Mendocino County. One 
commenter (Siebert Vineyard, comment 36) states that 99.7 percent of 
the Russian River watershed is not in the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. These commenters also point out that the watershed 
encompasses all or part of several other viticultural areas (for 
example, Alexander Valley, Dry Creek Valley, Mendocino, and Redwood 
Valley), which are acknowledged to have different growing conditions 
than the Russian River Valley viticultural area. Thus, they argue, 
merely being in the Russian River watershed is not reason enough to be 
included in the Russian River Valley viticultural area.

Geographical Features

Climate
    A large number of opposing commenters assert that the petitioned-
for expansion area has a different climate than the existing Russian 
River Valley viticultural area. Most of these commenters state that the 
proposed expansion area is cooler and windier, and lacks the Russian 
River Valley viticultural area's characteristic ``coastal fog.'' 
Comments regarding fog and wind are discussed in greater detail later 
in this comment discussion.
    Five opposing commenters make specific criticisms of the 
petitioner's data regarding degree days. To recap the petition data, 
using the Winkler system, the petitioner submitted a complete degree 
day data set for the years 1996-1998 for three of its vineyards: Laguna 
Ranch and MacMurray Ranch, both located within the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area as established in 1983, and Two Rock Ranch, located 
within the proposed expansion area. The annual degree day averages for 
the three-year period were then compared to the 2001 degree day data 
for four other Russian River Valley vineyards, which were published in 
the 2005 rulemaking document that expanded the viticultural area.
    The opposing commenters note that the degree day data covers only a 
three-year period from a decade ago, and assert that the data provide 
an insufficient basis for stating that the

[[Page 70873]]

expansion area has the same climate as the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. The commenters also note that data were submitted 
for only one location in the proposed expansion area. Frank R. Bailey, 
III, of Bailey Vineyards (comment 88), states: ``One data point in the 
expansion area is not sufficient to prove anything about climate in the 
14,000 acre area, much less overturn climate reports that were prepared 
with 30 years of data * * *. Furthermore, the petition shows that this 
one data point only uses a selective 3 year period of time. This one 
location did not even include scientifically randomized or long term 
information * * *. This selective use of data is not credible.'' Paul 
Ahvenainen of F. Korbel & Bros., Inc. (comment 68) similarly states: 
``The petitioner wishes to add approximately 14,000 acres of land to 
the RRV using only one data point in the expansion area. That data 
point is in the extreme southeast corner of the expansion area. * * * 
Three years is not enough data to accurately portray a climate 
accurately. I would have expected the petitioner to supply data from 
the following ten years.'' Dr. William K. Crowley further states: ``It 
is also reasonable to ask why the selected years were used for 
presentation. The petition was filed in 2008, but the latest data cited 
are from 1998. What do the data for the years since 1998 look like? 
Three years of data from one site are not sufficient evidence for 
moving a viticultural area boundary.''
    Mr. Ahvenainen and Dr. Crowley also note that the petitioner's data 
show that Two Rock Ranch accumulated only 1,925 degree days in 1998. 
According to the Winkler system, 1,925 degree days would place the site 
in the cooler ``marine'' zone instead of the ``coastal cool'' zone 
which characterizes the Russian River Valley viticultural area. [TTB 
notes that the degree day data for each of the three years contained in 
the 1996-1998 degree day averages for the petitioner's vineyards are 
contained in Exhibit 21 to the petition; Exhibit 21 also shows that the 
degree days for Two Rock Ranch in 1996 and 1997 were 2,219 and 2,537, 
respectively; these data were not included in Notice No. 90.]
    As described above, the petition also included a detailed analysis 
of the proposed expansion area's climate that was prepared by Patrick 
Shabram, a geographic consultant who claims extensive experience in 
Sonoma County viticulture. In this analysis, Mr. Shabram states that 
the petitioner's climate data, which showed an average of 940 degree 
days of temperatures between 70 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the 
growing season from 1996-1998 for Two Rock Ranch vineyard (within the 
proposed expansion area), demonstrate that the area should be 
classified as ``coastal cool'' rather than as a ``marine'' climate 
type. Mr. Shabram also provided the petitioner with a climate zone map 
that he drafted in which all of the proposed expansion area is depicted 
as belonging to the coastal cool zone. This map is a revision of an 
earlier climate map entitled ``Sonoma County Climatic Zones'' (Paul 
Vossen, University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Sonoma 
County, 1986). The earlier map, which was included in the petition and 
also submitted by a few opposing commenters, clearly depicts the 
proposed expansion area as having a marine climate and the Russian 
River Valley viticultural area as having a coastal cool climate.
    Eight commenters disagree with Mr. Shabram's conclusions regarding 
the proposed expansion area's climate. In particular, these commenters 
disagree with Mr. Shabram's revisions to the ``Sonoma County Climatic 
Zones'' map based on the petitioner's data. The earlier map, they 
state, was developed by Paul Vossen and R.L. Sisson after analyzing 
thirty years of Sonoma County climate data, so the earlier map is more 
credible than Mr. Shabram's analysis, which is based on only three 
years of data from one location. Two of these commenters (Mr. 
Ahvenainen and Dr. Crowley) further state that Mr. Shabram contradicts 
earlier statements that Mr. Shabram made in his 1998 master's thesis 
about climate. Dr. Crowley quotes Mr. Shabram as stating in this thesis 
that a researcher's climate work was ``somewhat suspect because [it] 
use[s] data that were taken over only a ten year period.'' The 
petitioner and Mr. Shabram submitted rebuttal comments (comments 17, 
18, and 67) defending Mr. Shabram's analysis, arguing that newer data 
collected with more modern methods should supersede the older climate 
map. The petitioner and Mr. Shabram also point out that a vineyard 
currently in the Russian River Valley viticultural area is similarly 
located within the older map's marine climate zone.
Fog
    T.D. ATF-159, which established the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area, states that the viticultural area includes those 
areas ``where there is significant climate effect from coastal fogs.'' 
The petition argues that the same fog that affects the existing 
viticultural area also affects the proposed expansion area.
    On the other hand, however, some commenters argue that the proposed 
expansion area has more fog, or fog of a different quality, than the 
fog that affects the existing Russian River Valley viticultural area. 
Most of these commenters state that the proposed expansion area has 
marine fog, rather than the coastal fog that affects the existing 
viticultural area. According to these commenters, marine fog is much 
heavier and colder than coastal fog, thus creating a different climate. 
One commenter, Siebert Vineyards, argues that ``the defining 
characteristic of the Russian River Valley AVA is not the presence of 
the fog itself, but the balance between the [warmer] inland valley 
climate and the fog.'' Another commenter, Dr. Crowley, states that fog 
intrusions characterize all of western Sonoma County as well as 
counties to the north and south, so fog alone is not a sufficient 
reason to include an area in the Russian River Valley viticultural 
area.
Wind
    Twenty-five commenters state that the petitioned-for expansion area 
is much windier than the existing Russian River Valley viticultural 
area. One comment, from Nunes Vineyard (comment 53), includes links to 
technical articles about how wind affects grapevines. This commenter 
argues that the wind in the proposed expansion area causes grapes from 
that area to develop different color, flavor, and aroma compounds than 
those from the existing viticultural area, resulting in wines with 
different characteristics. Some of these commenters note that wind 
breaks consisting of eucalyptus trees are planted throughout the 
proposed expansion area, but not in the existing Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. Four commenters note that there are high wind 
warning signs in the proposed area, located on Highway 101 about \1/4\ 
mile north of Two Rock Ranch. Mr. Ahvenainen, who submitted a photo of 
one of these signs, states that they are the only such signs in Sonoma 
County. Another commenter notes that a winery in the expansion area is 
named Windy Hill Vineyard & Winery.
    The petitioner responds that opponents submitted no hard evidence 
regarding wind, and that wind breaks and vineyard names are inadequate 
evidence to demonstrate the existence and effect of wind in the 
proposed expansion area. The petitioner's response further notes that a 
Windy Hill Ranch is located in the current Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. The petitioner also included with its comment wind 
speed data collected from several sites within the current viticultural 
area and the proposed

[[Page 70874]]

expansion area. Some of the data is from California Irrigation 
Management Information System (CIMIS) weather stations, while the 
remaining data are ``from weather stations positioned on vineyards.'' 
The petitioner notes that the CIMIS data show that the Petaluma station 
(ostensibly in the Petaluma Gap, but not in the petitioned-for 
expansion area) recorded winds no stronger than winds in the existing 
viticultural area. The data also show that wind speeds from Two Rock 
Ranch (not a CIMIS station) are no stronger than those within the 
existing viticultural area. In response, five commenters argue that the 
petitioner's self-collected wind data are not reliable. These 
commenters state that the placement of the measuring device in a 
sheltered site, such as on the lee side of a windy hill or close to the 
ground, could produce readings that are not typical of the area.
Vegetation
    Several commenters state that the petitioned-for expansion area is 
nearly treeless and has little vegetation compared to the existing 
Russian River Valley viticultural area, which they describe as rich in 
redwoods and oaks. Three of these commenters submitted photographs 
showing the contrasting vegetation of the two areas. In this regard, 
Bailey Vineyards states: ``One hallmark feature of the Russian River 
Valley area is the ubiquitous redwood forest in the background of every 
vineyard or vista of the Russian River Valley * * * they are long 
standing evidence of the qualities of fog drip, humidity, soil type and 
hydration of the soil. The proposed expansion area is not in the 
vicinity of redwood trees * * *.''
    In response to these comments, the petitioner submitted a map 
entitled ``Russian River Watershed Vegetation'' issued by the 
California Department of Fish & Game, which the petitioner argues shows 
that both the existing viticultural area and the petitioned-for 
expansion area share similar natural vegetation. The petitioner also 
states that its Sonoma County personnel have observed no differences in 
vegetation between the two areas.
Harvest Dates
    Several opposing commenters state that they have observed the 
petitioner picking its grapes at Two Rock Ranch later in the season 
than growers in the Russian River Valley viticultural area. This, they 
state, is an indication of the proposed expansion area's climate. In 
response, the petitioner argues in its comments that harvest dates are 
not significant because they can be manipulated by factors other than 
climate, such as irrigation practices, canopy management, and crop 
load. Notwithstanding these arguments, the petitioner provided harvest 
dates for Two Rock Ranch and for its vineyards located within the 
existing viticultural area, which show that grapes in both areas were 
picked in the same ``harvest window,'' according to the petitioner.

Comments Regarding Issues Outside the Scope of Part 9

    Numerous commenters cite various reasons for opposition to the 
proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area that 
do not relate to the regulatory criteria set forth in 27 CFR 9.12 for 
viticultural area petitions. The points made by these commenters 
included the following:
     Approval of the proposal will harm growers/wineries in the 
current Russian River Valley viticultural area. Many of these 
commenters believe that the proposed expansion will result in lower 
grape prices. Other commenters state that small growers will not be 
able to compete with the petitioner, one of the world's largest wine 
companies. A few of these commenters further state that approving the 
petitioned-for expansion goes against TTB's mission to ensure a ``fair 
and even marketplace.''
    With respect to this point and the potential effect on small grape 
growers, TTB notes that the Allied Grape Growers (comment 24) state 
that they do not believe that the proposed expansion would lower grape 
prices. TTB also notes that the petitioner already has vineyards 
located within the 154,984-acre Russian River Valley viticultural area, 
so the approval of the petitioned-for expansion area would not 
introduce the petitioner to the marketplace for wines or grapes from 
that viticultural area. Further, according to the petition, the 
petitioner's Two Rock Ranch Vineyard, which is located in the 14,044-
acre petitioned-for expansion to the Russian River Valley viticultural 
area, is only 350 acres. By comparison, there are over 15,000 acres of 
vineyards in the current viticultural area, according to the Russian 
River Valley Winegrowers Web site (see http://www.rrvw.org/ava-boundary). The petitioner's 350 vineyard acres represents less than 2.5 
percent of the vineyard acres currently within the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area.
     Wines from the petitioned-for expansion area taste 
different from those from the existing Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. Although most of these comments merely cite 
differences in taste, a few state that wines from the proposed 
expansion area are ``inferior.'' These commenters argue that these 
differences will confuse consumers and ultimately hurt the reputation 
and/or sales of wineries and growers currently in the viticultural 
area.
    TTB notes that the purpose of viticultural areas is to allow 
vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to 
consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. TTB 
also reiterates that the establishment of a viticultural area is 
neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in 
that area, including a determination of wine quality.
     Approval will lead to more expansion petitions. Several 
commenters argue that approving this proposal will lead to still more 
petitions to expand the Russian River Valley viticultural area, and one 
commenter suggests that TTB's acceptance of the proposed expansion of 
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area will make it more difficult for 
TTB to reject future petitions to expand that viticultural area.
    TTB will examine the merits of any such petitions when and if they 
are received. TTB's decision regarding whether to approve the proposed 
expansion areas will neither forestall any future petitions regarding 
the expansion or re-alignment of the boundary lines for the Russian 
River Valley or Northern Sonoma viticultural areas, nor affect the 
likelihood of TTB's acceptance of any such proposals in the future.

TTB Analysis

The Proposed Expansion of the Russian River Valley Viticultural Area

    TTB notes that although the comments submitted in response to 
Notice No. 90 overwhelmingly oppose the proposed expansion of the 
Russian River Valley viticultural area, the petition included a 
``Petition of Support: Russian River Valley AVA Expansion'' with 208 
signatures. Thus, significant numbers of persons have expressed support 
of and opposition to the expansion of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. In view of the divided opinions on whether or not 
TTB should approve the petitioned-for expansion, in addition to the 
petition evidence and the comments received, TTB reviewed the 
regulatory record concerning the establishment of the Russian River 
Valley viticultural area to ensure that any action taken concerning 
this petitioned-for expansion would be consistent with prior regulatory 
actions. In particular, TTB reviewed T.D. ATF-159, which initially 
established the Russian River Valley viticultural area in

[[Page 70875]]

1983, and T.D TTB-32, which expanded the viticultural area southward in 
2005. TTB also notes that the number of comments received in response 
to this proposed rulemaking greatly exceeds the number of comments 
received on the initial establishment of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area (only one comment, in favor) and on the 2005 
expansion (two comments, both in favor).

Name Evidence

    With regard to the issue of name evidence for the petitioned-for 
expansion, TTB reviewed the regulatory history of the Russian River 
Valley viticultural area, and those prior rulemakings do not reflect 
name evidence that clearly defines what area is recognized as 
constituting the Russian River Valley. Maps of the Russian River 
watershed and of the current viticultural area submitted with the 
petition indicate that the Russian River Valley viticultural area 
occupies only a small portion of the watershed. Moreover, the Russian 
River itself flows in a southerly direction far north of the of the 
current viticultural area boundary, then into the current viticultural 
area through the northern portion of the boundary, and then westward 
through the northern portion of the viticultural area before passing 
through the western portion of the viticultural area boundary on its 
way to the Pacific Ocean.
    The name evidence submitted in support of the petitioned-for 
expansion is based on the proposed area being within the Russian River 
watershed, on several letters from vineyard owners who express their 
beliefs that the expansion area is known to be part of the Russian 
River Valley, and on a letter from William F. Heintz, a local wine and 
viticulture historian. The petitioner also included a printed copy of 
map entitled ``Russian River Map'' on which the proposed expansion area 
appears.
    With regard to those commenters who indicate that the petitioned-
for expansion area is known by other names such as Rohnert Park and 
Cotati, or is part of the Petaluma Gap, TTB notes that the Russian 
River Valley is a large area that also incorporates other communities 
such as Sebastopol and Healdsburg. Recognition of the names of 
communities such as Rohnert Park and Cotati does not preclude the area 
from being recognized as part of the larger Russian River Valley. 
Regarding the assertion that the expansion area is known under the name 
of Petaluma Gap rather than as part of the Russian River Valley, TTB 
believes that the evidence submitted is not conclusive or persuasive.
    Some opposing commenters assert that the Russian River Valley is in 
northern Sonoma while the proposed expansion area is in southern 
Sonoma, with one commenter citing historical documentation that puts 
Petaluma Valley to the south, Santa Rosa Valley to the center, and the 
Russian River Valley to the north. Several commenters (for example, Dr. 
Crowley) submitted maps and other historical evidence indicating that 
the Russian River Valley does not extend south of Santa Rosa. In 
response to these comments, TTB notes that the regulatory history does 
not lead to the conclusion that what is known as the Russian River 
Valley is a term exclusive to ``northern'' Sonoma. Although T.D. ATF-
159 indicates that the Russian River Valley viticultural area as 
initially established was north of Santa Rosa, the existing 
viticultural area, as expanded southward by T.D. TTB-32 in 2005, 
extends significantly south of Santa Rosa. With regard to the 2005 
expansion, TTB notes that Dr. Crowley's comment appears to be 
supportive of that regulatory action, which also involved an expansion 
to the south of Santa Rosa.
    With regard to the tourism map, TTB agrees with the opposing 
commenters that the map does not identify the proposed expansion area 
as being known as part of the Russian River Valley.
    However, even without considering the tourism map as supporting 
evidence, TTB believes that the petitioner has submitted sufficient 
evidence that the expansion area is associated with what is known as 
the Russian River Valley. Specifically, the petitioner's assertion is 
supported by evidence that the expansion area is almost entirely within 
the Russian River watershed, by the letter from Mr. Heinz, and by other 
letters in support of the expansion area. Moreover, the prior 
regulatory record, specifically T.D. TTB-32, is consistent with the 
petitioner's assertion that the Russian River Valley name extends to 
the south, where the petitioned-for expansion area lies.

Boundary Evidence

    As described in Notice No. 90, the boundary line for the proposed 
expansion area is based upon well-supported evidence that the proposed 
boundary line primarily follows the ridge that defines the southern 
flank of the Russian River watershed, and it then turns north to meet 
the current boundary line of the viticultural area. Although some 
comments contend that the proposed expansion area is part of the 
``Petaluma Gap'' rather than the Russian River Valley, TTB notes that 
comment 44, which was submitted by the Petaluma Gap Winegrowers 
Alliance, does not oppose the proposed expansion of the Russian River 
Valley viticultural area or otherwise address the evidence submitted in 
support of the proposed expansion; rather, the comment merely describes 
the Petaluma Gap region and states that the Petaluma Gap Winegrowers 
Alliance strongly supports the Sonoma Coast viticultural area and its 
current boundary line. TTB has not recognized the Petaluma Gap as a 
viticultural area, and no evidence has been submitted that sufficiently 
identifies and supports any specific distinguishing features of the 
Petaluma Gap region. Further, as previously noted, the map of the 
Petaluma Gap submitted for the rulemaking record indicates that a 
portion of the petitioned-for expansion area, as well as a portion of 
the current Russian River Valley viticultural area, is located within 
the boundary line for the Petaluma Gap area. In summary, none of the 
comments submitted provide sufficient evidence to refute the evidence 
submitted by the petitioner that the proposed boundary line is 
appropriate for the Russian River Valley viticultural area.

Geographical Features

Climate
    The issues raised in the comments concerning temperature data 
primarily concern the adequacy of the data to demonstrate that the 
petitioned-for expansion is in a coastal cool climate zone. The 
petitioner supplied three years of degree day data from the Two Rock 
Ranch, which is in the southernmost portion of the proposed expansion 
area. In Notice No. 90, TTB determined that these data were sufficient 
for purposes of soliciting comments on the proposed expansion. With 
regard to the adequacy of the data, TTB notes two points. First, the 
Two Rock Ranch is located in the southern portion of the proposed 
expansion, and TTB believes that this is highly relevant to the issue 
of whether the expansion area has a climate that is similar to that of 
the existing Russian River Valley viticultural area to the north. 
Second, the petitioner submitted three years of data from the Two Rock 
Ranch, and TTB believes that these data are sufficient, noting that the 
climate data supporting the 2005 expansion of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area was derived from only a single year and did not 
engender any negative public comments regarding the adequacy of these 
data. TTB also notes that, although

[[Page 70876]]

some commenters have questioned the adequacy of the data in the present 
case, none of those opposing comments included actual data that 
contradict the data supplied by the petitioner.
    With regard to comments referring to the ``Sonoma County Climate 
Zones'' map, TTB notes that several commenters submitted copies of this 
map with additional lines indicating the current boundary of the 
Russian River Valley viticultural area as well as the petitioned-for 
expansion area. First, given that the northern portion of the proposed 
expansion area is identified on the maps as being within the coastal 
cool climate, this information augments the specific temperature data 
concerning the more southern portion of the proposed expansion area 
submitted by the petitioner, and the information further supports the 
conclusion that the specific data submitted by the petitioner are 
adequate. Second, TTB notes that, in the case of the 2005 expansion, 
inclusion of that expansion area in the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area was not dependent on all of the expansion area being 
within the coastal cool climate zone as delineated on the ``Sonoma 
County Climate Zones'' map, as shown by the fact that a southeastern 
portion of the 2005 expansion area is identified on the map as having a 
marine climate.
    Finally, from a historical perspective, T.D. ATF-159 describes the 
fog intrusions in the Russian River Valley viticultural area as 
yielding growing temperatures that are normally (Winkler) Region I or 
cooler, thus distinguishing the Russian River Valley from the warmer 
neighboring valleys such as Dry Creek Valley, Alexander Valley, and 
Sonoma Valley. Accordingly, in the establishment of the Russian River 
Valley viticultural area, the focus was on identifying a climate that 
was cooler than surrounding areas, so temperatures lower than those 
associated with Region I are not inconsistent with the intent of that 
rulemaking.
Fog
    Although there does not seem to be any dispute that the petitioned-
for expansion area is affected by fog, some opposing commenters suggest 
that the fog in the expansion area is marine fog that is much heavier 
and colder than the coastal fog in the existing Russian River Valley 
viticultural area. Despite the commenters' assertion that the different 
fog creates a different climate, no data were submitted to show that 
there is a distinction in this regard between the existing Russian 
River Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area. 
Moreover, neither T.D. ATF-159 nor T.D. TTB-32 noted any distinction 
between the Russian River Valley viticultural area and areas outside 
the boundary of the viticultural area based on type of fog.
Wind
    TTB notes that wind was not a geographical feature relied upon to 
establish the existing Russian River Valley viticultural area. 
Nevertheless, TTB reviewed the information submitted by opposing 
commenters concerning high winds within the petitioned-for expansion 
area. No adequate data were submitted that would enable TTB to 
determine the extent of the wind variation between the existing 
viticultural area and the petitioned-for expansion area, if any, or to 
determine whether there is a significant and unique effect on 
viticulture caused by wind within the petitioned-for expansion area.
Vegetation and Harvest Dates
    TTB recognizes that variations in vegetation and harvest dates from 
one area to another can result from several factors, including 
differences in temperature and/or fog. However, it would be 
inappropriate for TTB to give weight to statements regarding the effect 
of temperature and/or fog in this regard in the absence of actual data 
that support those statements.

The Proposed Expansion of the Northern Sonoma Viticultural Area

    As noted above, most commenters addressed only the petitioned-for 
expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area, and only a few 
commenters specifically addressed the proposed expansion of the 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area. The several commenters who 
specifically opposed the proposed expansion of the Northern Sonoma 
viticultural area contend that the Northern Sonoma viticultural area 
should be limited to ``northern'' Sonoma, and that northern Sonoma does 
not include the proposed expansion area, which is located only ten 
miles from Marin County. Accordingly, those commenters argue that the 
proposed expansion is too far south to be part of the Northern Sonoma 
viticultural area.
    In contrast, in his comment supporting the proposed expansion of 
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area, Patrick Shabram (comment 16) 
states that the Russian River watershed is a defining feature for 
northern Sonoma, so the proposed expansion area should be considered 
part of northern Sonoma because it is part of the Russian River 
watershed. In addition, some commenters supported the proposed 
expansion of the Northern Sonoma viticultural area on the ground that 
the entire Russian River Valley viticultural area had been part of the 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area prior to the 2005 expansion, so the 
Northern Sonoma viticultural area should be expanded to once again 
include the entire Russian River Valley viticultural area, including 
the 2005 expansion area as well as the current proposed expansion area.
    TTB agrees with the supporting commenters that the Northern Sonoma 
viticultural area should be expanded as proposed to ensure that the 
entire Russian River Valley viticultural area is once again fully 
contained within the Northern Sonoma viticultural area, as had been the 
case prior to the 2005 expansion of the Russian River Valley 
viticultural area.

Request for a Public Hearing

    TTB is not granting RRVBIC's request for a public hearing. The 
Bureau has determined that a hearing is not necessary because the 
public record as described above provides sufficient basis for a 
decision.

TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the evidence submitted by the petitioner, and 
the rulemaking record as discussed above, support the approval of the 
proposed expansion of the Russian River Valley viticultural area. TTB 
also concludes that, for the reasons stated above and in Notice No. 90, 
the Northern Sonoma viticultural area should be expanded to include the 
entire Russian River Valley viticultural area.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative boundary description of the expanded Russian 
River Valley and Northern Sonoma viticultural areas in the regulatory 
text at the end of this document. In this final rule, TTB altered some 
of the language in the written boundary descriptions published as part 
of Notice No. 90. TTB made these alterations in the written boundary 
description language for clarity and consistency with the existing 
written boundary descriptions for the Russian River Valley and Northern 
Sonoma viticultural areas. These alterations do not change the location 
of the expanded Russian River Valley or Northern Sonoma viticultural 
area boundaries as proposed in Notice No. 90.

[[Page 70877]]

Maps

    The maps for determining the boundaries of the viticultural areas 
are listed below in the regulatory text.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

    The expansions of the Russian River Valley and Northern Sonoma 
viticultural areas do not affect currently approved wine labels. The 
approval of these expansions will allow additional vintners to use both 
``Russian River Valley'' and ``Northern Sonoma'' as appellations 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 
as an appellation of origin a viticultural area name or other 
viticulturally significant term specified in part 9 of the TTB 
regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from 
grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 
administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a 
viticultural area name is 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no 
regulatory assessment.

Drafting Information

    This rule was drafted by the Regulations and Rulings Division.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

The Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, 
chapter 1, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

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

    Authority:  27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

0
2. Section 9.66 is amended:
0
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, a 
semicolon followed by the word ``and'', and by adding a new paragraph 
(b)(12); and
0
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:


Sec.  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, 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 on to 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, 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 on to the Santa Rosa map, T6N, 
R8W, on the Santa Rosa map.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 9.70 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (b); and
0
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:


Sec.  9.70  Northern Sonoma.

* * * * *
    (b) Approved Maps. The nine United States Geological Survey 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.

[[Page 70878]]

    (1) The beginning point is on the Sonoma County, 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 designated as State 
Highway 12 (Bodega Road) at BM 214, as shown on the Valley Ford map.
    (3) The boundary follows Bodega Road 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), Township 6 North, Range 9 West, 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 
Barnett Valley Road's intersection with Burnside Road, section 17, 
Township 6 North, Range 9 West.
    (5) The boundary follows Burnside Road southeast 3.3 miles to 
Burnside Road's intersection with an unnamed medium duty road at BM 
375, Township 6 North, Range 9 West.
    (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, Township 6 North, Range 9 West.
    (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, Township 6 North, Range 9 West.
    (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 the line's 
intersection with the common Ranges 8 and 9 line, just west of an 
unnamed unimproved dirt road, Township 6 North.
    (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, Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
    (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 medium-duty road (Roblar Road), 
Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
    (11) The boundary follows a straight line south 0.5 mile to an 
unnamed 678-foot elevation peak, Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
    (12) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.8 mile 
to an unnamed peak with a 599-foot elevation, Township 5 North, Range 8 
West.
    (13) The boundary follows a straight line east-southeast 0.7 mile 
to an unnamed peak with a 604-foot elevation, Township 5 North, Range 8 
West.
    (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 Meacham Road, 
Township 5 North, Range 8 West.
    (15) The boundary follows Meacham Road north-northeast 0.75 mile to 
Meacham Road's intersection with Stony Point Road, Township 5 North, 
Range 8 West.
    (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, Township 5 North, Range 8 West.
    (17) The boundary follows a straight line north-northeast 0.5 mile 
to the point where an unnamed intermittent stream intersects U.S. 101, 
Township 5 North, Range 8 West.
    (18) The boundary follows U.S. Route 101 north 4.25 miles to the 
point where Santa Rosa Avenue exits U.S. Route 101 to the east 
(approximately 0.5 mile north of the Wilfred Avenue overpass) Township 
6 North, Range 8 West.
    (19) The boundary follows Santa Rosa Avenue north 1.1 miles to its 
intersection with Todd Road, crossing on to the Santa Rosa map, 
Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
    (20) The boundary follows Santa Rosa Avenue generally north 5.8 
miles, eventually becoming Mendocino Avenue, to Santa Rosa Avenue's 
intersection with an unnamed secondary road (Bicentennial Way), 0.3 
mile north-northwest of BM 161 on Mendocino Avenue, section 11, 
Township 7 North, Range 8 West.
    (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 the line's intersection with Mark West 
Springs Road and the meandering 280-foot elevation line in section 26, 
Township 6 North, Range 8 West.
    (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 Petrified Forest Road's intersection with the 
Sonoma County-Napa County line.
* * * * *

    Signed: April 14, 2011.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
    Approved: July 21, 2011.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2011-29519 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P