[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54399-54409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

RIN 1512-AA07
[Notice No. 856]


Establishment of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area and the 
Realignment of the Boundary of the Central Coast Viticultural Area (97-
242)

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has received 
a petition proposing the establishment of a viticultural area in the 
State of California to be known as San Francisco Bay. The proposed area 
is located mainly within five counties which border the San Francisco 
Bay and partly within two other counties. These counties are: San 
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and partly in 
Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. The proposed San Francisco Bay 
viticultural area encompasses approximately 3,087 square miles total 
containing nearly 6,000 acres planted to grapes and over 70 wineries. 
In conjunction with the petition, ATF received a proposal to amend the 
boundaries of the current Central Coast viticultural area to include 
the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area. As the current 
boundaries already encompass part of the proposed San Francisco Bay 
viticultural area, approximately 1,278 square miles would be added to 
Central Coast with an additional 3,027 acres planted to grapes and 21 
more wineries.

DATES: Written comments must be received by January 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Chief, Wine, Beer, and Spirits 
Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol,

[[Page 54400]]

Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221 (Attn: 
Notice No. 856). Copies of the petitions, the proposed regulations, the 
appropriate maps, and any written comments received will be available 
for public inspection during normal business hours at the ATF Reading 
Room, Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure, Room 6480, 650 
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC., 20226.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Brokaw, Wine, Beer and Spirits 
Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650 
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC., 20226 (202) 927-8230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 23, 1978, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR 
37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR Part 4. These regulations 
allow the establishment of definitive viticultural areas. The 
regulations allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used 
as an appellation of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. 
On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR 
56692) which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR, for the listing of approved 
American viticultural areas, the names of which may be used as 
appellations of origin.
    Section 4.25a(e)(1), title 27, CFR, defines an American 
viticultural area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable 
by geographic features, the boundaries of which have been delineated in 
Subpart C of Part 9.
    Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an 
American viticultural area. Any interested person may petition ATF to 
establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition 
should include:
    (a) Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is 
locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in 
the petition;
    (b) Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the 
viticultural area are as specified in the petition;
    (c) Evidence relating to the geographical characteristics (climate, 
soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the 
viticultural features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;
    (d) A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural 
area, based on features which can be found on United States Geological 
Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
    (e) A copy (or copies) of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the 
boundaries prominently marked.

Petition for the Proposed San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area

    ATF has received a petition from Mr. Philip Wente, Vice President 
of Wente Bros., proposing to establish a new viticultural area in 
Northern California to be known as San Francisco Bay. The proposed San 
Francisco Bay viticultural area is located mainly within five counties 
which border the San Francisco Bay and partly within two other 
counties. These counties are: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, 
Alameda, Contra Costa and partly in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. 
The petitioner claims that Santa Cruz County, although it has no Bay 
shoreline, has traditionally been associated with the place name San 
Francisco Bay. The portion of the Santa Clara Valley located in San 
Benito County has been included. The proposed viticultural area 
encompasses approximately 3,087 square miles total containing nearly 
6000 acres planted to grapes and over 70 wineries.
    The petitioner claims that the proposed San Francisco Bay 
viticultural area is a distinctive grape growing region. According to 
the petitioner, the area is distinguished by a unique marine climate 
which is heavily influenced by the proximity of the San Francisco Bay 
and the Pacific Ocean. Specifically, the San Francisco Bay and the 
local geographical features surrounding it permit the cooling influence 
of the Pacific Ocean to reach farther into the interior of California 
in the Bay Area than elsewhere along the California coast.
    In proposing boundaries for the San Francisco Bay viticultural 
area, the petitioner has purposely included the waters of the San 
Francisco Bay as well as urban areas, particularly the City of San 
Francisco. The petitioner feels that the San Francisco Bay is the 
``heart and soul of this appellation, its namesake and unifying force, 
the source of its weather, the focal point of its history.'' As such, 
the petitioner believes that it should not be cut out of the center of 
the appellation. Although it is not a feasible vineyard site, the city 
has long been a wine industry hub.
    The evidence submitted by the petitioner is discussed in detail 
below. Given the scope of the proposals and the wide range of interests 
that are likely to be affected by the establishment of a San Francisco 
Bay viticultural area, ATF wishes to solicit public comment 
particularly with respect to the following questions raised by the 
petition:
    (1) Is there sufficient evidence that the name, ``San Francisco 
Bay,'' can be associated with regions south and east of the bay such as 
Santa Clara Valley and Livermore? Do these regions have climatic or 
geographic differences with other regions of the proposed area to such 
a degree that they cannot be considered as one viticultural area?
    (2) Does the evidence support exclusion from the proposed 
viticultural area of the regions north of the Bay, i.e., Marin, Napa, 
Solano, and Sonoma Counties?
    (3) Can the regions where grapes cannot be grown in the proposed 
viticultural area, such as the dense urban settings and the Bay itself, 
be easily segregated from the rest of the proposed area? Does it 
undermine the notion of a viticultural area to keep them included?

Evidence That the Name of the Area is Locally or Nationally Known

    According to the petitioner, San Francisco Bay is a locally, 
nationally and internationally recognized place name. Therefore, the 
petitioner believes that San Francisco Bay is the appropriate name for 
the proposed area, since even people who do not know the names of any 
California counties have an idea where the San Francisco Bay is. The 
petitioner claims that to people all over the world, San Francisco Bay 
calls to mind the well-known body of water by that name and, by 
inference, the land areas that surround it.
    The counties of San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara 
and San Mateo--within which the proposed area is located--border the 
San Francisco Bay. According to the petitioner, Santa Cruz County, 
although it has no Bay shoreline, has traditionally been associated 
with the place name San Francisco Bay. The petitioner also included the 
portion of the Santa Clara Valley located in San Benito County.
    According to the petitioner, the names ``San Francisco Bay area'' 
or ``San Francisco Bay region'' sometimes refer to an area that is 
different than the area discussed in this petition. The petitioner 
claims that although sources differ in how broadly they define the San 
Francisco Bay region, the various definitions--without exception--
include the counties mentioned above. The following sources, are cited 
by the petitioner as being representative of the consensus among 
experts that the petitioned area is widely known by the name San 
Francisco Bay.
    According to the petitioner, the name San Francisco Bay is more 
frequently

[[Page 54401]]

and more strongly associated with the counties lying south and east of 
the San Francisco Bay than with nearby counties to the north. For 
example, the petitioner cites the 1967 Time Life book entitled ``The 
Pacific States,'' which describes the San Francisco Bay Area as a 
megalopolis with the city [of San Francisco] as the center, stretching 
40 miles south to San Jose and from the Pacific to Oakland and beyond.
    The petitioner also cites weather expert Harold Gilliam, in his 
book Weather of the San Francisco Bay Region, as discussing an area 
including San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa 
Cruz Counties. The petitioner points out that James E. Vance, Jr., 
Professor of Geography at the University of California, Berkeley, 
studied the same area in his book entitled Geography and Urban 
Evolution in the San Francisco Bay Area. Also, according to the 
petitioner, climatologist Clyde Patton studied the same region in his 
definitive work Climatology of Summer Fogs in the San Francisco Bay 
Area. Mr. Vance's and Mr. Patton's maps of ``Bay Area Place Names'' are 
included with the petition.
    A final source cited by the petitioner is Lawrence Kinnaird, 
University of California Professor of History, who wrote a History of 
the Greater San Francisco Bay Region. According to the petitioner, Mr. 
Kinnaird's book also covers the counties of San Francisco, Santa Clara, 
Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz.

Historical or Current Evidence That the Boundaries of the 
Viticultural Area Are as Specified in the Petition

    According to the petitioner, within the grape growing and 
winemaking community, the name San Francisco Bay has always been 
identified with the area proposed in the petition. In support of this 
claim, the petitioner cited several references to reflect the 
industry's perception of this place name.
    For example, wine writer Hugh Johnson, in his book The World Atlas 
of Wine, devotes a separate section (``South of the Bay'') to the 
winegrowing areas of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast. According 
to the petitioner, Mr. Johnson describes the traditional centers of 
wine-growing in this area as concentrated in the Livermore Valley east 
of the Bay; the western foot-hills of the Diablo range; the towns south 
of the Bay, and along the slopes of the Santa Cruz mountains down to a 
cluster of family wineries round the Hecker Pass. The petitioner claims 
that Mr. Johnson repeatedly distinguishes the winegrowing region south 
and east of the Bay from areas to the north of the Bay. In support of 
this claim, the petitioner refers to a statement from Mr. Johnson's 
book pointing out that the area just south and east of San Francisco 
Bay is wine country as old as the Napa Valley.
    Another writer cited by the petitioner is Robert Lawrence Balzer 
who devotes a chapter to ``Vineyards and Wineries: Bay Area and Central 
Coast Counties'' in his book Wines of California. According to the 
petitioner, this chapter and the accompanying map include wineries and 
vineyards in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa 
Cruz Counties. The petitioner claims that throughout his book, Mr. 
Balzer makes it clear that he differentiates the San Francisco Bay area 
grape growing areas from those north of San Francisco Bay and south of 
Monterey Bay. In support of this claim, the petitioner cites several 
quotes from the book. For example, Mr. Balzer states that, ``Logic, as 
well as geography, dictates our division into these unofficial groups 
of counties: North Coast, Bay Area and Central Coast, South Central 
Coast, Central Valley, and Southern California. The vineyard domain 
south of San Francisco is as rich and colorful in its vintage history 
as the more celebrated regions north of the Bay Area.'' According to 
the petitioner, it is clear that this author does not consider Napa and 
Sonoma Counties as part of the Bay Area. As evidence of this, the 
petitioner cites the following statement, ``Alameda County does not 
have the scenic charm of * * * Napa and Sonoma * * *.'' The petitioner 
points out that the same book contains a photograph showing the Golden 
Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay with the caption, ``San Francisco Bay 
divides the North Coast from the other wine areas of California.''
    According to the petitioner, in his book Vineyards and Wineries of 
America, Patrick W. Fegan distinguishes the winegrowing region of the 
San Francisco Bay Area from Monterey, noting that when urban 
development around the Bay Area began to threaten vineyard areas, 
University of California professors proposed planting vineyards in 
Monterey County.
    Another source cited by the petitioner in support of the proposed 
boundaries is Grape Intelligence, a reporting service for California 
winegrape industry statistics. According to the petitioner, Grape 
Intelligence issues a yearly report for grape varieties in the San 
Francisco Bay Area. Reports for this region cover San Francisco, San 
Mateo, Santa Cruz, Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
    The petitioner also cited historic evidence. According to the 
petitioner, the San Francisco Viticultural District, defined by the 
State Viticultural Commissioners at the end of the last century, 
comprised the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa 
Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey--but no areas north of the 
Bay.
    The petitioner claims that the California Department of Food and 
Agriculture currently considers the proposed area as a single unit. The 
petitioner states that the Grape Pricing Districts established by the 
State of California reflect the joined perception of the six San 
Francisco Bay counties, by grouping San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa 
Cruz, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa together in District 6.
    The petitioner provided a list of ``Largest Bay Area Wineries'' 
from a chart which appeared in the San Francisco Business Times of 
November 21, 1988. The list includes 21 wineries in Alameda, Contra 
Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. No wineries from the 
North Coast counties of Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, or Lake are included.

Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil, 
Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish Viticultural 
Features of the Proposed Area From Surrounding Areas

Climate

    According to the petitioner, the unifying and distinguishing 
feature of the coastal climate of the proposed area is the influence of 
both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. The petitioner claims 
that coastal areas north of the proposed area are influenced by the 
Pacific Ocean and by the San Pablo and Richardson Bays, while areas 
south of the proposed area are influenced by the Pacific Ocean and by 
Monterey Bay. In addition, the ocean influence enters each region 
through different routes--through the Estero Gap in the North Coast, 
through the Golden Gate in the San Francisco Bay region, and through 
Monterey Bay in the southerly portion of Central Coast.
    According to the petitioner, west to east flowing winds named the 
westerlies, which bring weather systems in California onshore from the 
ocean, prevail in the proposed area. Directly affecting the weather in 
the San Francisco Bay area is the Pacific high pressure system, 
centered a thousand miles off the Pacific Coast. The petitioner claims 
that during winter months, its location south of San Francisco allows 
the passage of

[[Page 54402]]

westward moving, rain producing, low pressure storms through the area.
    According to the petitioner, during the summer months the high is 
located closer to the latitude of San Francisco. It then deflects rain 
producing storms to the north, producing a dry summer climate in San 
Francisco area. The petitioner claims that the winds from the high 
(which flow onshore from the northwest to the southeast) produce a cold 
southward flowing surface water current (called the California Current) 
off the California coast by a process called upwelling, in which cold 
deep water is brought to the surface. When moist marine air from the 
Pacific High flows onshore over this cold water, it cools, producing 
fog and/or stratus cloud areas which are transported inland by wind.

Climatic Affect and Proposed Boundaries

    The petitioner states that from a meteorological perspective, the 
northwesterly windflow through the Estero Gap (near Petaluma in Sonoma 
County) into the Petaluma Valley, provides the major source of marine 
influence for areas north of the Golden Gate. Airflow inland from San 
Pablo Bay also affects the climate of southern Napa and Sonoma 
Counties. According to the petitioner, San Francisco Bay has little 
impact on the weather in the region to its north. The onshore 
prevailing northwesterly flow direction, in combination with the 
coastal range topographic features of counties north of the Bay and the 
pressure differential of the Central Valley, minimize a northward 
influence from the air that enters the Golden Gate. According to the 
petitioner, the higher humidity, lower temperatures and wind flow that 
enter the Golden Gate gap do not flow north of the San Francisco Bay.
    The petitioner states that, as a result of the different air mass 
sources, grape growing sites immediately north of the Bay are cooler 
than corresponding sites in the Bay Area. As an example, the petitioner 
cites General Viticulture which lists Napa with 2,880 degree days, 
while Martinez (directly south of Napa on the Carquinez Strait) has 
3,500 degree days. Calistoga is listed as 3,150 degree days, while 
Livermore (approximately equidistant from the Carquinez Strait, but to 
the south) has 3,400. According to the petitioner, the degree day 
concept was developed by UC Davis Professors Amerine and Winkler as a 
measure of climate support for vine growth and grape ripening; large 
degree day values indicate warmer climates.
    According to the petitioner, the proposed San Francisco Bay 
viticultural area is also distinguished from the counties north of the 
San Francisco Bay by annual rainfall amounts. The petitioner states 
that most winter storms that hit the Central California coast originate 
in the Gulf of Alaska. Thus, locations in the North Coast viticultural 
area generally receive more rain than sites in the proposed 
viticultural area.
    According to the petitioner, this effect is illustrated by Hamilton 
Air Force Base on the northwest shore of the San Pablo Bay in Marin 
County. The base gets 25% more rain in a season than does San Mateo, 
which has a corresponding bayshore location 34 miles to the south. The 
petitioner points out that San Francisco gets an average of 21 inches 
of rain annually, but nine miles north of the Golden Gate, Kentfield 
gets 46 inches--more than double the amount of rain. According to the 
petitioner, average rainfall over the entire south bay wine producing 
area is only 18 inches, while the City of Napa averages 25 inches, 
Sonoma County (average of 5 sites) averages 35 inches, and Mendocino 
County averages 40 inches.
    According to the petitioner, it should be noted that the California 
North Coast Grape Growers supported the petitioner's position. In a 
letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms dated September 
14, 1979, they asked that the term North Coast Counties be applied only 
to Napa, Sonoma and Mendocino counties. The petitioner claims that part 
of their reasoning was the observations of Professor Crowley of the 
Geography Department at Sonoma State University who said that the 
counties north of the San Francisco Bay have different climates from 
the counties south of the bay.
    Thus, the petitioner maintains that the main determinants of the 
northern boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the: (1) 
Natural geographic/topographic barriers, (2) lack of direct San 
Francisco Bay influence in areas to its north, and (3) different 
predominant coastal influences in the northern area. The petitioner 
feels that these factors lead to significant wind flow, temperature, 
and precipitation differences between the areas north and south of San 
Francisco Bay. Thus, the petitioner claims that it is logical to draw 
the northern boundary of the proposed area at the point where the 
Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco Bay separate the northern 
counties, i.e., Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma of the North Coast 
viticultural area from the counties of San Francisco and Contra Costa.
    According to the petitioner, the eastern boundary of the proposed 
San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area matches the existing boundary of 
the Central Coast Viticultural area and is located at the inland 
boundary of significant coastal influence, i.e., along the hills and 
mountains of the Diablo Range that form a topographical barrier to the 
intrusion of marine air.
    According to the petitioner, east of the Diablo Range lies the 
Central Valley, distinguished from the proposed area by its higher 
temperature, lower humidity, and decreased rainfall. The petitioner 
states that, the Central Valley has a completely continental climate, 
i.e., much hotter in summer and cooler in winter. Amerine & Winkler 
categorize the grape growing areas in the Central Valley (Modesto, 
Oakdale, Stockton, Fresno) as Region V (over 4,000 degree days), while 
sites in the proposed area range from Region I to III. This is 
illustrated on a ``Degree Day Map'' provided by the petitioner.
    According to the petitioner, north of Altamont, the proposed 
boundary continues to follow the inland boundary of coastal influence. 
(This portion of the boundary matches the concurrently submitted 
proposed boundary extension for the Central Coast Viticultural area.) 
Like the existing eastern boundary of the Central Coast, this extension 
excludes the innermost range of coastal mountains. The eastern boundary 
includes Martinez and Concord, but excludes Antioch, and the eastern 
portion of Contra Costa County.
    The petitioner claims that the average precipitation in the Central 
Valley is lower than in the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural 
area. The following are thirty year average rainfall statistics in 
inches for locations in the Central Valley: Modesto 10.75, Fresno 
10.32, Los Banos 7.98, Lodi 12.74, Antioch 12.97.
    Thus, according to the petitioner, the main determinants of the 
proposed eastern boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the 
(1) historic existing eastern boundary of the Central Coast 
viticultural area, (2) natural geographic/topographic climatic barrier 
created by the Diablo Range, and (3) the inland boundary of the coastal 
marine influence. The petitioner feels that these factors lead to 
significant temperature, humidity and precipitation differences between 
the areas east and west of the proposed eastern boundary.
    According to the petitioner, the southern boundary matches those of 
the Santa Cruz and Santa Clara viticultural areas. As discussed in the 
section on

[[Page 54403]]

climate, the San Francisco Bay influence is diminished and the Monterey 
Bay influence is felt south of the proposed area. According to the 
petitioner, the regional northwestern prevailing wind flow direction 
generally prevents the Monterey Bay influence from affecting the 
climate in the proposed area.
    According to the petitioner, Monterey Bay has a very broad mouth 
with high mountain ranges to both the north and south. The petitioner 
claims that fog and ocean air traveling along the Pajaro River do on 
rare occasions reach the south end of the Santa Clara Valley to the 
north, but most of the Monterey Bay influence travels to the east and 
south (borne by the prevailing northwest wind) into the Salinas Valley 
and up against the eastern coastal hills.
    According to the petitioner, Central Coast climate thus gradually 
warms with increased distance from the San Francisco Bay, as air 
traveling over land areas south of the bay accumulates heat and dries 
out. The petitioner claims that the warming trend reverses, however, at 
the point where the south end of the Santa Clara Valley meets the 
Pajaro River. Here wind and fog from the Monterey Bay, flowing westward 
through the Pajaro River gap, begins to assert a cooling influence.
    According to the petitioner, the decrease of San Francisco Bay 
influence, and the concurrent increase of Monterey Bay influence, is 
demonstrated by the difference in heat summation between Gilroy and 
Hollister. The petitioner claims that Central Coast sites warm with 
increasing distance from the San Francisco Bay, but this pattern 
reverses at the southern boundary of the Santa Clara Valley 
viticultural area, between Gilroy and Hollister, as the influence of 
the Monterey Bay becomes dominant. According to the petitioner, this 
produces significantly cooler temperatures in Hollister than in Gilroy, 
even though Hollister is farther from San Francisco Bay.
    Petition Table 2 ``Decrease in San Francisco Bay Influence,'' 
indicates a gradual warming trend as one travels southward from the San 
Francisco Bay. According to the petitioner, past Gilroy to Hollister, 
however, a new cooling trend is observed due to the influence of the 
Monterey Bay.
    According to the petitioner, Hollister is significantly cooler than 
Gilroy even though its location is sheltered by hills from the full 
influence of Monterey Bay. The weather station near coastal Monterey 
shows the strongest cooling from the Monterey Bay. The petitioner 
claims that continuing south in the Salinas Valley, the climate again 
grows warmer with increasing distance from Monterey Bay.
    In summary, according to the petitioner, the southern boundary of 
the proposed area has been defined to match the southern boundary of 
the Santa Clara Valley and Santa Cruz viticultural areas because this 
is the location of the transition from a climate dominated by flow from 
the San Francisco Bay to one dominated by flow from Monterey Bay.
    According to the petitioner, the west boundary of the proposed San 
Francisco Bay Viticultural Area follows the Pacific coastline from San 
Francisco south to just north of the City of Santa Cruz. This area is 
greatly influenced by Pacific Ocean breezes and fog. According to the 
petitioner, the western hills of the Santa Cruz Mountains are exposed 
to the strong prevailing northwest winds. The climate of the eastern 
portion of these hills is affected by the moderating influences of the 
San Francisco Bay.
    According to the petitioner, just north of the City of Santa Cruz, 
the western boundary turns east excluding a small portion of Santa Cruz 
County from the proposed area, as it was from the Santa Cruz Mountains 
viticultural area. The petitioner claims that the area around Santa 
Cruz and Watsonville is close to sea level, and is sheltered from the 
prevailing northwesterly Pacific Ocean winds by the Santa Cruz 
mountains. Therefore, fog and bay breezes from Monterey Bay impact the 
area, while the San Francisco Bay does not influence the area.
    Thus, according to the petitioner, the main determinant of the 
western boundary of the proposed viticultural area include the (1) 
natural geography of the coastline, (2) Pacific Ocean and San Francisco 
Bay influence, and (3) historical identity as part of the San Francisco 
Bay Area.

Topography

    According to the petitioner, the weather in the bay region is a 
product of the modification of the onshore marine air masses described 
above by the topography of the coast ranges, a double chain of 
mountains running north-northwest to south-southeast. Each chain 
divides into two or more smaller chains, creating a patchwork of 
valleys.
    According to the petitioner, as the elevation of the western chain 
of the coastal ridge is generally higher than the altitude of the 
inversion base, the inversion acts as a lid to prevent the cool onshore 
flowing marine air and fog from rising over the mountains and flowing 
inland. Because of this, successive inland valleys generally have less 
of a damp, seacoast climate and more of a dry, continental climate.
    According to the petitioner, this pattern is modified by a few gaps 
and passes in the mountain ranges that allow marine influences to 
spread farther inland without obstruction. The petitioner claims that 
these inland areas are, however, somewhat protected from the Pacific 
fogs, which are evaporated as the flow is warmed by passage over the 
warmer land surfaces.
    The three largest sea level gaps in the central California coastal 
range mountainous barrier are (north to south): Estero Lowland in 
Sonoma, Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay, and Monterey Bay. According 
to the petitioner, several smaller mountain pass gaps (San Bruno and 
Crystal Springs) sometimes also allow for the inland spread of coastal 
climate in the Bay Area when the elevated inversion base is high 
enough.
    According to the petitioner, the Bay Area climate is greatly 
modified by San Francisco Bay, whose influence is similar to that of 
the ocean, i.e., it cools summer high temperatures and warms winter low 
temperatures. The petitioner states that the narrowness of the Golden 
Gate limits the exchange of bay and ocean waters, and thus bay waters 
are not quite as cold as the coastal ocean currents during the summer.
    According to the petitioner, marine air exits the San Francisco Bay 
(without having experienced the normal drying and heating effects 
associated with over-land travel) in several directions. The 
predominant outflow is carried by the onshore northwesterly winds 
toward the south through the Santa Clara Valley to Morgan Hill and to 
the east via the Hayward Pass and Niles Canyon.
    According to the petitioner, temperatures at given locations in the 
Bay Area are thus dependent on streamline distance (actual distance 
traveled) from the ocean, rather than its ``as the crow flies'' 
distance from the ocean. The petitioner claims that Livermore Valley 
temperatures show this phenomenon. Ocean air flows across San Francisco 
Bay, through the Hayward Pass and Niles Canyon, and into the Livermore 
Valley, causing a cooling effect in summer and a warming effect in 
winter.
    In summary, because of the interaction of topography with the 
prevailing winds in the Bay Area, the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco 
Bay are the major climatic influences in the proposed viticultural 
area. According to the petitioner, this interaction has two principal 
effects: (1) To allow the coastal influence of the Pacific Ocean to

[[Page 54404]]

extend farther east than otherwise possible, and (2) to modify that 
coastal influence because of the moderating effects of Bay waters on 
surrounding weather.

Proposal To Amend the Boundaries of the Central Coast Viticultural 
Area

    In conjunction with the petition to establish the San Francisco Bay 
viticultural area, Mr. Philip Wente, Vice President of Wente Bros., 
proposes to amend the boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area 
to encompass the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area.
    According to the petitioner, an examination of the three large 
viticultural areas on the California coast reveals a gap between 
Monterey and Marin, where many acres of existing and potential 
vineyards are not represented by any viticultural area. In petitioning 
for the revision of the Central Coast viticultural area, the petitioner 
claims to be continuing the logical pattern already established in the 
organization of viticultural areas on the California coast. According 
to the petitioner, the proposed revised Central Coast viticultural area 
is a larger area that ties together several smaller sub-appellations 
(Santa Clara Valley, Santa Cruz Mountains, Ben Lomond Mountain, 
Livermore Valley, San Ysidro District, Pacheco Pass, San Benito, 
Cienega Valley, Mount Harlan, Paicines, Lime Kiln Valley, Monterey, 
Carmel Valley, Chalone, Arroyo Seco, Paso Robles, York Mountain, Edna 
Valley, Arroyo Grande Valley, Santa Maria Valley, Santa Ynez Valley, 
and the proposed San Francisco Bay viticultural area), all of which are 
dominated by the same geographic and general marine influences that 
create their climate.
    According to the petitioner, the evidence presented in the petition 
establishes that the well-known Central Coast name and the general 
marine climate extend north and northwest beyond the current Central 
Coast boundaries.

The Name, Central Coast as Referring to Santa Cruz and the Counties 
Surrounding San Francisco Bay

    According to the petitioner, the name Central Coast, as used by 
wine writers and the state legislature, extends north and west into 
Santa Cruz County and five counties that surround the San Francisco 
Bay, beyond the area currently recognized as the Central Coast 
viticultural area. In support of this claim, the petitioner cited 
several references.
    Patrick W. Fegan's book Vineyards and Wineries of America, contains 
a map of ``Central Coastal Counties'' designating Contra Costa, 
Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, San 
Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara.
    Another example cited by the petitioner is Central Coast Wine Tour, 
published by Vintage Image in 1977 and 1980, which covers the area from 
San Francisco to Santa Barbara and specifically describes past and 
present wineries in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, 
San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties.
    According to the petitioner, The Connoisseurs' Handbook of 
California Wines defines ``Central Coast'' in the section entitled 
``Wine Geography'' as: ``The territory lying south of San Francisco and 
north of the city of Santa Barbara--San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, 
San Benito, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties.''
    According to the petitioner, Bob Thompson and Hugh Johnson, in 
their book The California Wine Book, describe the ``Central Coast'' as 
an indeterminate area between San Francisco and Santa Barbara, 
including San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Monterey, Santa Clara 
and Santa Cruz Counties.
    According to the petitioner, in Wines of California, by Robert 
Balzer, the wine producing areas on the California coast are 
categorized into three groups: North Coast counties, Bay Area and 
Central Coast counties, and South Central Coast counties. The section 
on ``Bay Area and Central Coast'' features a map, included with the 
petition, illustrating the counties surrounding San Francisco Bay and 
the Santa Cruz Mountains. The petitioner points out that listed among 
the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast wineries in the book are seven 
of the vintners who signed the petition to establish the Santa Cruz 
Mountains Viticultural Area (David Bruce Winery, Felton-Empire 
Vineyards, Mount Eden Vineyards, Martin Ray Vineyards, Ridge Vineyards, 
Roudon-Smith Vineyards and Woodside Vineyards). Finally, the petitioner 
provided a vineyard and winery map published by Sally Taylor and 
Friends in the 1980's which includes Santa Cruz County on the map 
entitled ``North Central Coast.''
    According to the petitioner, in addition to the numerous 
viticultural writings, government and scholarly studies on the climate 
and geography of the California Central Coast also include the counties 
around the San Francisco Bay in the proposed area.
    According to the petitioner, the historic San Francisco 
Viticultural District in 1880 grouped the counties of San Francisco, 
San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Contra Costa together. 
The 1930 University of California monograph ``Summer Sea Fogs of the 
Central California Coast'' by Horace R. Byers focuses on an area ``from 
Point Sur to the entrance of Tomales Bay, including San Francisco and 
Monterey Bays: Santa Clara, San Ramon, Livermore, San Benito, and 
Salinas valleys * * *'' These valleys are located in Santa Clara, 
Contra Costa, Alameda, San Benito and Monterey Counties, respectively.
    The petitioner cites section 25236 of the 1955 California Alcoholic 
Beverage Control Act which allows the use of the description ``central 
coastal counties dry wine'' on wine originating in several counties 
including Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San 
Luis Obispo counties. The petitioner recognizes that ``central coastal 
counties'' is not a legal appellation under the Federal Alcohol 
Administration Act. The petitioner stated that this law is mentioned 
solely to support the fact that the counties surrounding San Francisco 
Bay are well-accepted in California as belonging within the place name 
``Central Coast.''
    According to the petitioner, the California Division of Forestry's 
``Sea Breeze Effects on Forest Fire Behavior in Central Coastal 
California'' summarizes the results of several fireclimate surveys 
conducted in the 1960's in several counties surrounding San Francisco 
Bay. Currently, the petitioner points out that the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center publishes 
monthly summaries of climatological data grouped into geographical 
divisions. The ``Central Coast Drainage'' division includes locations 
in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa 
Cruz, Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties.
    The petitioner believes that the sources discussed above 
demonstrate that the counties included in the proposed revised Central 
Coast boundaries are commonly and historically known as being within 
the place-name ``Central Coast.''

Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil, 
Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish the 
Viticultural Features of the Proposed Area From Surrounding Areas

Coastal Climate and Marine Influence

    According to the petitioner, the coastal climate of the Central 
Coast viticultural area is the principal feature which unifies the area 
and distinguishes it from surrounding areas. As an

[[Page 54405]]

indication of the ``coastal climate'' effect on the area, the 
petitioner cites the difference between July and September 
temperatures. According to the petitioner, September (fall) is usually 
warmer than July (summer) in coastal areas, while the reverse is true 
in continental areas. The petitioner states that this unique coastal 
characteristic results from two factors: fogs and air flows. Fogs keep 
summer coastal temperatures low while the interior regions absorb all 
of the sun's summer energy. These fogs diminish in strength and 
frequency in the fall allowing more coastal solar gain and the 
resultant temperature rise, while interior temperatures begin their 
relative decline. According to the petitioner, this seasonal 
fluctuation comes about when, (1) the pressure differential between the 
Pacific high and the Central Valley is reduced which eliminates the 
inversion cap over the coast ranges and, (2) the temperature of the 
Pacific Ocean reaches its highest level in the fall which reduces the 
cooling of onshore air flows. According to the petitioner, these air 
flows from the Pacific Ocean invade the land mass through gaps in the 
coast range. Thus, the petitioner claims that a location's climate is 
dictated primarily by its position relative to the windstream distance 
from the Pacific--the greater the windstream distance the greater the 
July/October temperature differential and the greater the degree day 
accumulation as the windstream will be increasingly warmed by the 
ground it passes over.
    Table 1 in the petition lists California cities in windstream 
groups from the most coastal (initiation) to the most continental 
(terminus). This table lists the difference (in degrees) between the 
average July and September temperatures in each city, which constitutes 
the measure of ``coastal'' character. Continental cities (Antioch to 
Madera), which are outside the current and proposed boundaries of the 
Central Coast, exhibit the highest July temperatures and the greatest 
difference in temperature from July to September. Also, included are 
accumulated Degree Days for April through October following Winkler's 
system. According to the petitioner, this chart demonstrates that 
within the coastal region--north and south--there is a continuum of 
coastal influence and the ensuing heat gradient during the growing 
season (Degree Days).
    According to the petitioner, within the proposed extension, the 
climate acts in an identical manner to the area in the existing Central 
Coast viticultural area. To support this claim, the petitioner cites 
petition Table I demonstrating that locations within the proposed 
revision to the Central Coast viticultural area (San Francisco, 
Richmond, Oakland, Berkeley, Half Moon Bay, Martinez, San Jose, Ben 
Lomond, Palo Alto) share the same coastal character (i.e., (1) higher 
September temperatures and, (2) an airstream continuum of Degree Day 
temperatures correlated with the airstream distance from the Pacific 
Ocean) as found at the current Central Coast cities (Monterey, Salinas, 
Hollister, King City, Livermore, Gilroy). A Coastal Character Map 
showing this data is attached to the petition. Accordingly, the 
petitioner believes that the data presented above establishes that the 
Central Coast boundary should be revised to accurately reflect the 
extent of the central coast climate.
    According to the petitioner, the proposed San Francisco Bay 
viticultural area and the Central Coast viticultural area lie within 
the same botanic zone. The petitioner cites the Sunset Western Garden 
Book published for 55 years by the editors of Sunset Magazine. The 
petitioner states that this comprehensive western plant encyclopedia 
has become a leading authority regarding gardening in the western 
United States. The Western Garden Book divides the region from the 
Pacific Coast to the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains into twenty-
four climate zones. The Central Coast viticultural area lies within 
Zones 7, 14, 15, 16, 17.
    The petitioner believes that the climate zones established by 
Sunset Magazine demonstrate that the main distinguishing feature of 
Central Coast--the coastal climate--extends west to the Santa Cruz 
coastline and north to the Golden Gate. The proposed revision to the 
Central Coast viticultural area also lies within these zones.
    According to the petitioner, the characteristic cool Mediterranean 
climate of the Central Coast viticultural area extends north and west 
of the current boundaries. This coastal Mediterranean climate is cool 
in the summer and the marine fog which penetrates inland makes the 
coast very oceanic, with little difference in temperature between mild 
winters and cool summers. The Mediterranean climate classification is 
so called because the lands of the Mediterranean Basin exhibit the 
archetypical temperature and rainfall regimes that define the class. In 
support of the Mediterranean climate claim, the petitioner cited The 
Climatic Regions Map from Atlas of California. This map is based on the 
Koeppen classification, which divides the world into climate regions 
based on temperature, the seasonal variation of drought, and the 
relationship of rainfall to potential evaporation. The Koeppen system 
uses letters based on German words having no direct English 
equivalents. The Climatic Regions Map depicts the extent of cool 
Mediterranean climate both north and west of the current Central Coast 
boundary and within it.
    The map shows that Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo 
and Santa Cruz counties in the proposed revision to the Central Coast 
viticultural area, like Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo and Santa 
Barbara counties in the current Central Coast viticultural area, are 
mostly classified as Csb Mediterranean climates (average of warmest 
month is less than 22  deg.C), with partial Csbn climate (more than 
thirty days of fog) along the coast.
    The petitioner states that it is due to this coastal climate 
(mainly fog and wind), that the degree of marine influence in the 
proposed revision to the Central Coast viticultural area is similar to 
the degree of marine influence found at other places inside the current 
Central Coast viticultural area. A map of central California, submitted 
with the petition, shows the extent of marine fog in the area. This map 
shows that the fog pattern in the proposed area is similar to other 
areas included in Central Coast. The fog extends inland to 
approximately the same extent throughout the proposed revised 
viticultural area. According to the petitioner, the ``Retreat of Fog'' 
map submitted with the petition also shows the similarity in the 
duration of fog in the current and proposed Central Coast viticultural 
area. The petitioner points out that the similar fog pattern is most 
evident along the coastal areas of Big Sur, Monterey Bay and San 
Francisco.

Topography

    According to the petitioner, Santa Cruz and the other San Francisco 
Bay counties share the Central Coast's terrain. The petitioner pointed 
out that one of the major California coast range gaps which produces 
the climate within the current Central Coast boundaries lies within the 
proposed revision to the Central Coast. The petitioner claims that the 
three largest sea level gaps in the central California coastal range 
mountainous barrier are (north to south): Estero Lowland in Sonoma 
County, Golden Gate into San Francisco Bay, and Monterey Bay. According 
to the petitioner, the Golden Gate and Monterey Bay allow the ocean 
influence to enter into the current Central Coast viticultural area 
creating its coastal climate which is the unifying and distinguishing 
feature of the area. The main gap in the current Central Coast

[[Page 54406]]

viticultural area, the Monterey Bay allows marine air and fog from the 
Pacific Ocean to travel south and inland, into the Salinas Valley. The 
petitioner believes that this feature creates the ideal grape-growing 
climate that exists in the Salinas Valley, but from a meteorological 
perspective, it has comparatively little influence on the portion of 
Central Coast viticultural area lying north of it. The on-shore 
prevailing northwesterly flow direction, combined with the coastal 
range topographical features north of the Bay's mouth, minimize 
northward influence from the air that enters the Monterey Bay. 
According to the petitioner, the Golden Gate gap introduces a cooling 
marine influence and the San Francisco Bay allows marine air and fog to 
travel much further inland and south through the Santa Clara and 
Livermore Valleys and provides most of the coastal influence affecting 
the northern portion of the Central Coast viticultural area.
    The petitioner states that although the Golden Gate and San 
Francisco Bay are primary influences on the current Central Coast 
climate, neither shoreline is included in the current Central Coast 
boundary. The petitioner believes that the proposed revision to the 
Central Coast viticultural area logically extends the current Central 
Coast boundaries to include the shores of the Golden Gate and San 
Francisco Bay.

Boundaries

    The proposed extension of the Central Coast viticultural area would 
include the currently excluded portions of five counties which border 
the San Francisco Bay. These counties are San Francisco, San Mateo, 
Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and all of Santa Cruz County. The 
proposed San Francisco Bay appellation would add approximately 1,278 
square miles to Central Coast. This area contains 3,027 acres planted 
to grapes and 21 wineries.
    The proposed revision to the Central Coast boundary follows the 
Pacific coastlines of Santa Cruz, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties, 
crosses San Francisco Bay, follows the northern boundary of Contra 
Costa County to Concord, and then follows the inland boundary of 
coastal influence, according to the petitioner, along straight lines 
between landmarks in the Diablo Mountain Range to the current Central 
Coast boundary.
    The southern boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area 
remains unchanged. The proposed changes to the western boundary, the 
California coastline, consists of extending the boundary north to the 
Golden Gate. The proposed eastern boundary is extended to include the 
area northwest of Livermore up to the San Pablo Bay. From Altamont 
(just east of Livermore) south, the proposed eastern boundary follows 
the current boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area. North of 
Altamont, the proposed boundary extension excludes the easternmost 
range of coastal mountains. The proposed eastern boundary includes 
Martinez and Concord, but excludes Antioch, and the eastern portion of 
Contra Costa County.

Public Participation--Written Comments

    ATF requests comments from all interested persons. Comments 
received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. 
Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration 
if it is practical to do so. However, assurance of consideration can 
only be given to comments received on or before the closing date.
    ATF will not recognize any submitted material as confidential and 
comments may be disclosed to the public. Any material which the 
commenter considers to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure 
to the public should not be included in the comments. The name of the 
person submitting a comment is not exempt from disclosure.
    Comments may be submitted by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-
8602, provided the comments: (1) Are legible; (2) are 8\1/2\'' x 11'' 
in size, (3) contain a written signature, and (4) are three pages or 
less in length. This limitation is necessary to assure reasonable 
access to the equipment. Comments sent by FAX in excess of three pages 
will not be accepted. Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be 
acknowledged. Facsimile transmitted comments will be treated as 
originals.
    Any person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public 
hearing on the proposed regulation should submit his or her request, in 
writing, to the Director within the 90-day comment period. The 
Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all 
circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.
    After consideration of all comments and suggestions, ATF may issue 
a Treasury decision. The proposals discussed in this notice may be 
modified due to comments and suggestions received.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not 
apply to this notice because no requirement to collect information is 
proposed.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation will not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 
establishment of a viticultural area is neither an endorsement nor 
approval by ATF of the quality of wine produced in the area, but rather 
an identification of an area that is distinct from surrounding areas. 
ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural areas merely allows 
wineries to more accurately describe the origin of their wines to 
consumers, and helps consumers identify the wines they purchase. Thus, 
any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the 
result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer acceptance of wines 
from that region.
    No new requirements are proposed. Accordingly, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a 
significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by 
this Executive Order.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of this document is David W. Brokaw, Wine, 
Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, 
Viticultural areas, and Wine.

Authority and Issuance

    Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, part 9, American 
Viticultural Areas, is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

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

    Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

    Par. 2. Section 9.75 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to add 23 
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) maps (19) through 
(41), by revising paragraph (c) introductory text to add three 
counties, by removing paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(12) and replacing 
them with new paragraphs

[[Page 54407]]

(c)(2) through (c)(9) and, renumbering existing paragraphs (c)(13) 
through (c)(40) as paragraphs (c)(10) through (c)(37).

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

* * * * *


Sec. 9.75  Central Coast

    (a) Name. * * *
    (b) Approved maps. * * *
* * * * *
    (19) Diablo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised 
1980
    (20) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised 
1980
    (21) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, 
Photorevised 1980
    (22) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, 
Photorevised 1980
    (23) Benicia, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised 
1980
    (24) Mare Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, 
Photorevised 1980
    (25) Richmond, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised 
1980
    (26) San Quentin, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, 
Photorevised 1980
    (27) Oakland West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, 
Photorevised 1980
    (28) San Francisco North, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, 
Photorevised 1968 and 1973
    (29) San Francisco South, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, 
Photorevised 1980
    (30) Montara Mountain, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, 
Photorevised 1980
    (31) Half Moon Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968 and 1973
    (32) San Gregorio, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968
    (33) Pigeon Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1968
    (34) Franklin Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1968
    (35) Ano Nuevo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1968
    (36) Davenport, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1968
    (37) Santa Cruz, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, 
Photorevised 1981
    (38) Felton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised 
1980
    (39) Laurel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photoinspected 
1978, Photorevised 1968
    (40) Soquel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, Photorevised 
1980
    (41) Watsonville West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, 
Photorevised 1980.
    (c) Boundary. The Central Coast viticultural area is located in the 
following California counties: Monterey, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, 
Alameda, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, San 
Mateo, and Contra Costa. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) The boundary follows north along the shoreline of the Pacific 
Ocean (across the Watsonville West, Soquel, Santa Cruz, Davenport, Ano 
Nuevo, Franklin Point, Pigeon Point, San Gregorio, Half Moon Bay, 
Montara Mountain and San Francisco South maps) to the San Francisco/
Oakland Bay Bridge. (San Francisco North map)
    (3) From this point, the boundary proceeds east on the San 
Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to the Alameda County shoreline. (Oakland 
West map)
    (4) From this point, the boundary proceeds east along the shoreline 
of Alameda County and Contra Costa County across the Richmond, San 
Quentin, Mare Island, and Benicia maps to a point marked BM 15 on the 
shoreline of Contra Costa County. (Vine Hill map)
    (5) From this point, the boundary proceeds in a southeasterly 
direction in a straight line across the Honker Bay map to Mulligan Hill 
elevation 1,438. (Clayton map)
    (6) The boundary proceeds in southeasterly direction in a straight 
line to Mt. Diablo elevation 3,849. (Clayton map)
    (7) The boundary proceeds in a southeasterly direction in a 
straight line across the Diablo and Tassajara maps to Brushy Peak 
elevation 1,702. (Byron Hot Springs map)
    (8) The boundary proceeds due south, approximately 400 feet, to the 
northern boundaries of Section 13, Township 2 South, Range 2 East. 
(Byron Hot Springs map)
    (9) The boundary proceeds due east along the northern boundaries of 
Section 13 and Section 18, Township 2 South, Range 3 East, to the 
northeast corner of Section 18. (Byron Hot Springs map)
    Par. 3. The table of sections in subpart C is proposed to be 
amended by adding Sec. 9.157 to read as follows:
* * * * *
9.157  San Francisco Bay

    Par. 4. Subpart C is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 9.157 to 
read as follows:

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

* * * * *


Sec. 9.157  San Francisco Bay

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``San Francisco Bay.''
    (b) Approved maps. The appropriate maps for determining the 
boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area are forty-two 
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) maps and one 
U.S.G.S. Quadrangle 5  x  11 Minute (Topographic) map. They are titled:
    (1) Pacheco Peak, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1971
    (2) Gilroy Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971
    (3) Mt. Sizer, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971
    (4) Morgan Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1980
    (5) Lick Observatory, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photoinspected 1973, Photorevised 1968
    (6) San Jose East, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961, 
Photorevised 1980
    (7) Calaveras Reservoir, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961, 
Photorevised 1980
    (8) La Costa Valley, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1960, 
Photorevised 1968
    (9) Mendenhall Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971
    (10) Altamont, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised 
1981
    (11) Byron Hot Springs, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, 
Photorevised 1968
    (12) Tassajara, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, 
Photoinspected 1974, Photorevised 1968
    (13) Diablo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised 
1980
    (14) Clayton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised 
1980
    (15) Honker Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, 
Photorevised 1980
    (16) Vine Hill, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, 
Photorevised 1980
    (17) Benicia, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised 
1980
    (18) Mare Island, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, 
Photorevised 1980
    (19) Richmond, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, Photorevised 
1980
    (20) San Quentin, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, 
Photorevised 1980
    (21) Oakland West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1959, 
Photorevised 1980
    (22) San Francisco North, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, 
Photorevised 1968 and 1973
    (23) San Francisco South, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, 
Photorevised 1980
    (24) Montara Mountain, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, 
Photorevised 1980

[[Page 54408]]

    (25) Half Moon Bay, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968 and 1973
    (26) San Gregorio, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1961, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968
    (27) Pigeon Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1968
    (28) Franklin Point, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1968
    (29) Ano Nuevo, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1968
    (30) Davenport, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1968
    (31) Santa Cruz, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, 
Photorevised 1981
    (32) Felton, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised 
1980
    (33) Laurel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photoinspected 
1978, Photorevised 1968
    (34) Soquel, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, Photorevised 
1980
    (35) Watsonville West, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, 
Photorevised 1980
    (36) Loma Prieta, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1968
    (37) Watsonville East, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1980
    (38) Mt. Madonna, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1980
    (39) Gilroy, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, Photorevised 
1981
    (40) Chittenden, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1980
    (41) San Felipe, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1955, 
Photorevised 1971
    (42) Three Sisters, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1954, 
Photoinspected 1978, Photorevised 1971
    (c) Boundary. The San Francisco Bay viticultural area is located 
mainly within the five counties which border the San Francisco Bay and 
partly within two other counties in the State of California. These 
counties are: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra 
Costa and partly in Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties. The boundaries 
of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, using landmarks and points 
of reference found on appropriate U.S.G.S. maps, are as follows:
    (1) Beginning at the intersection of the 37 degree 00' North 
latitude parallel with State Route 152 on the Pacheco Peak Quadrangle.
    (2) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to 
the intersection of Coyote Creek with the township line dividing 
Township 9 South from Township 10 South on the Gilroy Hot Springs 
Quadrangle.
    (3) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to 
the intersection of the township line dividing Township 8 South from 
Township 9 South with the range line dividing Range 3 East from Range 4 
East on the Mt. Sizer Quadrangle.
    (4) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line 
(across the Morgan Hill Quadrangle) to the intersection of the township 
line dividing Township 7 South from Township 8 South with the range 
line dividing Range 2 East from Range 3 East on the Lick Observatory 
Quadrangle.
    (5) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line to 
the intersection of State Route 130 with the township line dividing 
Township 6 South from Township 7 South on the San Jose East Quadrangle.
    (6) Then proceed in a northeasterly direction following State Route 
130 to its intersection with the range line dividing Range 1 East from 
Range 2 East on the Calaveras Reservoir Quadrangle.
    (7) Then proceed north following this range line to its 
intersection with the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct on the La Costa Valley 
Quadrangle.
    (8) Then proceed in a northeasterly direction in a straight line 
following the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct to the western boundary of Section 
14 in Township 4 South, Range 2 East on the Mendenhall Springs 
Quadrangle.
    (9) Then proceed south along the western boundary of Section 14 in 
Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southwest corner of Section 14 on 
the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.
    (10) Then proceed east along the southern boundary of Section 14 in 
Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southeast corner of Section 14 on 
the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.
    (11) Then proceed south along the western boundary of Section 24 in 
Township 4 South, Range 2 East to the southwest corner of Section 24 on 
the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle.
    (12) Then proceed east along the southern boundary of Section 24 in 
Township 4 South, Range 2 East and Section 19 in Township 4 South, 
Range 3 East to the southeast corner of Section 19 on the Mendenhall 
Springs Quadrangle.
    (13) Then proceed north along the western boundaries of Sections 
20, 17, 8, and 5 on the Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle in Township 4 
South, Range 3 East, north (across the Altamont Quadrangle) along the 
western boundaries of Sections 32, 29, 20, 17, 8, and 5 in Township 3 
South, Range 3 East, and north along the eastern boundaries of Sections 
31, 30, 19, and 18 in Township 2 South, Range 3 East to the northeast 
corner of Section 18 on the Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle.
    (14) Then proceed due west along the northern boundaries of Section 
18 and Section 13 (Township 2 South, Range 2 East) to a point 
approximately 400 feet due south of Brushy Peak on the Byron Hot 
Springs Quadrangle.
    (15) Then proceed due north to Brushy Peak (elevation 1,702) on the 
Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle.
    (16) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line 
(across the Tassajara and Diablo Quadrangles) to Mt. Diablo (elevation 
3,849) on the Clayton Quadrangle.
    (17) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line 
to Mulligan Hill (elevation 1,438) on the Clayton Quadrangle.
    (18) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line 
(across the Honker Bay Quadrangle) to a point marked BM 15 on the 
shoreline of Contra Costa County on the Vine Hill Quadrangle.
    (19) Then proceed west along the shoreline of Contra Costa County 
and Alameda County (across the Quadrangles of Benicia, Mare Island, 
Richmond, and San Quentin) to the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge on 
the Oakland West Quadrangle.
    (20) Then proceed west on the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to 
the San Francisco County shoreline on the San Francisco North 
Quadrangle.
    (21) Then proceed along the San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa 
Cruz County shoreline (across the Quadrangles of San Francisco South, 
Montara Mountain, Half Moon Bay, San Gregorio, Pigeon Point, Franklin 
Point, Ano Nuevo and Davenport) to the place where Majors Creek flows 
into the Pacific Ocean on the Santa Cruz Quadrangle.
    (22) Then proceed northeasterly along Majors Creek to its 
intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton Quadrangle.
    (23) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line in a generally 
easterly/northeasterly direction to its intersection with Bull Creek on 
the Felton Quadrangle.
    (24) Then proceed along Bull Creek to its intersection with Highway 
9 on the Felton Quadrangle.
    (25) Then proceed along Highway 9 in a northerly direction to its 
intersection with Felton Empire Road.
    (26) Then proceed along Felton Empire Road in a westerly direction 
to its intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton 
Quadrangle.
    (27) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line (across the 
Laurel, Soquel, Watsonville West and Loma Prieta Quadrangles) to its 
intersection with

[[Page 54409]]

Highway 152 on the Watsonville East Quadrangle.
    (28) Then proceed along Highway 152 in a northeasterly direction to 
its intersection with the 600 foot contour line just west of Bodfish 
Creek on the Watsonville East Quadrangle.
    (29) Then proceed in a generally east/southeasterly direction along 
the 600 foot contour line (across the Mt. Madonna and Gilroy 
Quadrangles), approximately 7.3 miles, to the first intersection of the 
western section line of Section 30, Township 11 South, Range 4 East on 
the Chittenden Quadrangle.
    (30) Then proceed south along the section line approximately 1.9 
miles to the south township line at Section 31, Township 11 South, 
Range 4 East on the Chittenden Quadrangle.
    (31) Then proceed in an easterly direction along the township line 
(across the San Felipe Quadrangle), approximately 12.4, miles to the 
intersection of Township 11 South and Township 12 South and Range 5 
East and Range 6 East on the Three Sisters Quadrangle.
    (32) Then proceed north along the Range 5 East and Range 6 East 
range line approximately 5.5 miles to Pacheco Creek on the Pacheco 
Creek Quadrangle.
    (33) Then proceed northeast along Pacheco Creek approximately .5 
mile to the beginning point.

    Signed: October 1, 1997.
John W. Magaw,
Director.
[FR Doc. 97-27692 Filed 10-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P