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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

RIN 1512-AA07

[T.D. ATF-407; Ref 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: Treasury decision, final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes a viticultural area in the

State of California to be known as ``San Francisco Bay,'' under 27 CFR

part 9. The 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 ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area encompasses

approximately 2,448 square miles total and contains nearly 5,800 acres

planted to grapes and over 39 wineries. In conjunction with

establishing the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area, ATF is

amending the boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area to

include the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. The previous

boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area already encompassed

part of the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. Approximately 639

square miles is added to Central Coast with an additional 2,827 acres

planted to grapes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 22, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Brokaw, Regulations Division,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, DC 20226, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC., 20226, (202) 927-8199.

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,

[[Page 3016]]

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 San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area

A consortium of nearly 75 growers and vintners led by Wente Bros.,

petitioned ATF to establish a new viticultural area in Northern

California known as ``San Francisco Bay,'' that will be included within

the Central Coast viticultural area. The ``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. 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 viticultural area encompasses approximately 2,448 square miles

total containing nearly 5,800 acres planted to grapes and over 39

wineries.

ATF has determined that the area is distinguished by a 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.

The waters of the San Francisco Bay as well as urban areas,

particularly the City of San Francisco, have purposely been included

since San Francisco Bay is the source of the viticultural area's

weather and the focal point of its history. Although it is not a likely

vineyard site, the city has long been a wine industry hub.

Comments

On October 20, 1997, ATF published a notice of proposed rulemaking,

Notice No. 856, in the Federal Register soliciting comments on the

proposed viticultural area. Given the scope of the proposals and the

wide range of interests that were likely to be affected by the

establishment of a San Francisco Bay viticultural area, ATF solicited

specific public comment with respect to certain questions raised by the

petition. ATF asked the following questions in Notice No. 856:

(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?

ATF received 49 comments in response to Notice No. 856. Basically,

the comments fall into five categories. These categories are as

follows: those in support (9), those in support for expanding the ``San

Francisco Bay'' area (1), those that oppose ``San Francisco Bay'' but

support the Central Coast expansion (3), those that oppose being

associated with another viticultural area (33), and those that oppose

the creation of ``San Francisco Bay'' (3).

Those in support felt that the appellation clearly defines a unique

area influenced by San Francisco Bay weather patterns. Among the

favorable comments were statements indicating that approval of the area

would align the boundaries between coastal appellations, would

recognize a historic wine growing region, would reinforce the economic

impact of wine growing in the area, and would be of benefit in

educating the wine consumer.

One respondent, the Allied Grape Growers, disagreed that the

coastal climatic influences stop at the crest of the hills of Altamont.

This respondent felt that the Brentwood-Byron area is now considered by

most independent observers as a part of the ``San Francisco Bay'' area.

While this respondent believed that Brentwood-Byron corridor should be

included, no specific evidence was provided.

Three respondents opposed the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural

area but supported the expansion of the Central Coast viticultural

area. Among these respondents was the Sonoma County Grape Growers

Association. The Association claimed that the petitioners have taken

reference works out of context with ``preposterous'' results. The

Association cited dramatic differences in climatic conditions (San

Francisco and Livermore), conflicting definitions of the area

(disagreement over what constitutes the Bay area), the fact that the

climate of San Francisco cannot sustain winegrape growing, and that the

proposal was for marketing purposes only. The Association believed that

it is not a meaningful viticultural area and will undermine the

integrity of the American viticultural area system. On the other hand,

the Association believed that there seems to be no reason to oppose

expanding the Central Coast viticultural area. The remaining two

respondents in this category generally felt that it is too broad an

appellation to have climatic integrity and seemed to have been proposed

for marketing and convenience considerations. One of the respondents

felt that the Central Coast appellation needs to be reexamined while

the other respondent felt that the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural

area should be included in the Central Coast viticultural area.

Thirty-three respondents opposed being associated with either the

``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area or the expansion of the Central

Coast viticultural area. These respondents were from the Santa Cruz

Mountains viticultural area. They felt that they have worked hard to

establish the distinctiveness of their wines and inclusion in either

the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area or the expanded central

coast viticultural area will do them ``incalculable damage.'' These

respondents claimed that the soils, rainfall, climate, and physical

features of Livermore differ completely from those of the Santa Cruz

Mountains viticultural area. They stated that their vineyards are, for

the most part, above the fogs. The average temperatures are in the 2140

to 2880 degree-day zone while Livermore is 3400. Rainfall for Livermore

is listed in the petition at 18 inches. These respondents stated that

the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area averages more than double

that amount of rainfall at a minimum of 36 to 40 inches. Further, the

Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area shares virtually none of the

soil types of Livermore with the soils producing average yields

dramatically smaller than the average yields in Livermore, resulting in

a different style of wine entirely. These respondents claimed that the

excluded areas in the ``North Bay'' and ``East Bay'' share far more

geographical and climatic features with Livermore than does the Santa

Cruz Mountains viticultural area. In addition, these respondents felt

that it would

[[Page 3017]]

undermine the meaning of American viticultural areas by including

large, dissimilar areas where grapes cannot be grown. Specifically,

these areas include the northern half of the San Francisco Peninsula

which is too cold to grow grapes, the heavy urban populations of

Oakland and the East Bay, and the Bay itself, which is not an inland

lake but a large bay of the Pacific Ocean. These respondents also felt

that including areas like southern Santa Clara County, and parts of San

Benito County would mislead the American public since residents of

these areas, as well as Santa Cruz County, historically have not been

considered and do not consider themselves to be living in the San

Francisco Bay area. Similarly, these respondents opposed the inclusion

of the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area in the expanded Central

Coast viticultural area since the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural

area does not share the same soils, climate or geographical

characteristics. These respondents also felt that the Central coast is

a recent construct having only limited validity from Monterey Bay

south.

Three respondents generally opposed the creation of the

viticultural area. One of these respondents, Mr. William Drake, claimed

that anyone who has spent any time at all in the Bay Area is well aware

that there are extreme differences in the various climates between the

areas included in the petition. In addition, Mr. Drake claimed that the

topography of this nearly two million acre proposed area differs

dramatically as one travels from the eastern portion westward to, and

over the coastal mountains. Mr. Drake also believed that while there

may be a Bay Area, that area is understood to include a number of

distinctly different areas, some of which are even outside of the Bay

Area, let alone the ``San Francisco Bay Area.'' Another respondent in

opposition was the Association of California North Coast Grape Growers.

Regarding the name evidence, the Association stated that Santa Clara,

Santa Cruz, and San Benito are nowhere near the San Francisco Bay. If

anything, Santa Cruz is associated with Monterey Bay. The Association

further stated that the petitioner provided no supporting evidence that

the San Benito area is locally or nationally known to be affiliated

with San Francisco. Regarding the exclusion of areas north of the Bay,

i.e., Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, the Association felt

that there was not supporting evidence, on the one hand to exclude

these areas, while, on the other hand, there was not supporting

evidence that the ``San Francisco Bay'' area should be included with

regions north of the bay. The Association felt that the most important

question revolves around the purpose of appellation names, i.e., to

identify and distinguish grape growing regions which are unique from

other growing regions based on geographic, altitude, climate, and soil

conditions. The Association believed that the fact that the City of San

Francisco is ``not a feasible vineyard site'' seemed to be a prima

facie case for immediate disqualification of the appellation name. The

Association also believed that the fact that the ``San Francisco Bay is

a locally, nationally or internationally recognized place name'' is

completely irrelevant to the issue of whether that place is known for

growing wine grapes. The City of San Francisco, and certainly its bay,

are not viticultural areas, according to the Association. The

Association went on to state that the petitioner might do just as well

calling the viticultural area ``Golden Gate Region'' if name

recognition is to be the litmus test for approving an appellation

petition. The Association further believed that if this area is

approved, it would set a precedent that would allow specific city or

location names to be used to describe very large geographic areas.

According to the Association, the North Coast appellation could be

renamed ``Napa Area,'' Central Coast could be called ``Santa Barbara,''

and the Central Valley might be named ``Yosemite.'' The Association

felt that should the petitioned area be found to be unique, and a

qualified appellation area, the name of the region should be more

generalized (i.e., Central Bay Area) as opposed to the specific city

name of San Francisco. The Association claimed that misstatements and

irrelevant evidence was provided by the petitioner. As examples,

excerpts from Hugh Johnson's book The World Atlas of Wine and Robert

Lawrence Balzer's Vineyards and Wineries: Bay Area and Central Coast

Counties were cited to illustrate that the ``Bay Area'' is not accepted

by these authors and industry experts as a viticultural region as

claimed by the petitioners. The Association further claimed that the

petitioners have provided extraneous historical and current evidence.

The Association cited the use of grape pricing districts as setting a

bad precedent to be used as a determinant for appellation designation

approval. The Association pointed out that San Benito is clearly not

listed as a part of the Grape Pricing District which includes San

Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra

Costa.

ATF Analysis of Comments

ATF has reviewed both the comments and the petitioner's response to

them and has concluded that, with one exception, the petitioner has

demonstrated that the proposed area represents a continuum of coastal

climate that is moderated and altered by San Francisco Bay creating a

distinct and recognizable area known as ``San Francisco Bay.'' The

exception is the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area. According to

the comments from members of the Santa Cruz Mountains Winegrowers

Association, the Santa Cruz Mountains vineyards, in the vast majority,

are located above the coastal fogs. The Santa Cruz vintners believe

that the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area is based primarily on

altitude and is not affected by the climates below. They also point out

that their viticultural area does not share the soils, climate, or

geographical characteristics of other viticultural areas in the State.

The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area is characterized by a

climate which is greatly influenced in the western portion by the

Pacific Ocean breezes and fog movements, and in the eastern portion by

the moderating influences of the San Francisco Bay. These two

influences tend to produce weather which is generally cool during the

growing season. Temperatures in the slopes of the hillsides where most

of the vineyards are located appear to vary from that at the lower

elevations. This is caused by the marine influence coming off the

Pacific Ocean which cools the mountains at night much more than the

valley floor. ATF has concluded that the Santa Cruz Mountains

viticultural area exhibits features and characteristics unique to its

boundaries when compared to the surrounding areas and should not be

included within the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area.

Accordingly, The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area has been

excluded from the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area.

ATF further believes that there is no significant or substantive

evidence at this time that would warrant holding hearings on this issue

as requested in some of the comments from the Santa Cruz Mountains

vintners.

Finally, ATF is not including the Brentwood--Byron area as

requested by the Allied Grape Growers. While this respondent believed

that the coastal climatic influences extended into the Brentwood--Byron

corridor, no specific evidence was provided to support this request.

[[Page 3018]]

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

``San Francisco Bay'' is a locally, nationally and internationally

recognized place name. ATF has concluded that ``San Francisco Bay'' is

the appropriate name for the area. San Francisco Bay is widely

recognized as 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 area is located--border the San

Francisco Bay. Santa Cruz County, although it has no Bay shoreline, has

traditionally been associated with the place name ``San Francisco

Bay.'' Also included is the portion of the Santa Clara Valley located

in San Benito County.

The names ``San Francisco Bay area'' or ``San Francisco Bay

region'' sometimes refer to an area that is different than the area

discussed in the petition. 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

were 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.

The name San Francisco Bay is more frequently 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 1967 Time

Life book entitled The Pacific States, 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 weather expert Harold Gilliam, in his book Weather of the San

Francisco Bay Region, discusses an area including San Francisco, San

Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Cruz Counties. 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, 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'' were included with the petition.

A final source is Lawrence Kinnaird, University of California

Professor of History, who wrote a History of the Greater San Francisco

Bay Region. 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

Within the grape growing and winemaking community, the name San

Francisco Bay has always been identified with the ``San Francisco Bay''

viticultural area. Several references 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. 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. Mr. Johnson repeatedly distinguishes

the winegrowing region south and east of the Bay from areas to the

north of the Bay. A statement in Mr. Johnson's book points out that the

area just south and east of San Francisco Bay is wine country as old as

the Napa Valley.

Another writer, Robert Lawrence Balzer devotes a chapter to

``Vineyards and Wineries: Bay Area and Central Coast Counties'' in his

book Wines of California. This chapter and the accompanying map include

wineries and vineyards in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa

Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties. 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 are 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.'' This author does not

consider Napa and Sonoma Counties as part of the Bay Area. The

following statement is evidence of this. ``Alameda County does not have

the scenic charm of * * * Napa and Sonoma.* * * '' 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.''

Another source in support of the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural

area boundaries is ``Grape Intelligence,'' a reporting service for

California winegrape industry statistics. 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.

As historical evidence, 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 California Department of Food and Agriculture currently

considers the area as a single unit. 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.

A list of ``Largest Bay Area Wineries'' from a chart which appeared

in the San Francisco Business Times of November 21, 1988, 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 Area From Surrounding Areas

Climate

The unifying and distinguishing feature of the coastal climate of

the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area is the influence of both

the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. Coastal areas north of the

appellation area are influenced by the Pacific Ocean and by the San

Pablo and Richardson Bays, while areas south of the appellation 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.

West to east flowing winds named the westerlies, which bring

weather systems in California onshore from the ocean, prevail in the

``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. Directly affecting the

[[Page 3019]]

weather in the area is the Pacific high pressure system, centered a

thousand miles off the Pacific Coast. During winter months, its

location south of San Francisco allows the passage of westward moving,

rain producing, low pressure storms through the area.

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 the San Francisco area. 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 Boundaries

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. 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. The higher

humidity, lower temperatures, and wind flow that enter the Golden Gate

gap do not flow north of the San Francisco Bay.

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, General Viticulture lists Napa with 2880

degree-days, while Martinez (directly south of Napa on the Carquinez

Strait) has 3500 degree-days. Calistoga is listed as 3150 degree-days,

while Livermore (approximately equidistant from the Carquinez Strait,

but to the south) has 3400. 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.

The ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area is also distinguished

from the counties north of the San Francisco Bay by annual rainfall

amounts. 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 ``San

Francisco Bay'' viticultural area.

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

percent more rain in a season than does San Mateo, which has a

corresponding bayshore location 34 miles to the south. 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. 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.

It should be noted that the California North Coast Grape Growers

advanced a position that is consistent with the petitioner's current

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. 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 main determinants of the northern boundary of the

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. These factors lead to significant wind flow,

temperature, and precipitation differences between the areas north and

south of San Francisco Bay. Thus, 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.

The eastern boundary of the ``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.

East of the Diablo Range lies the Central Valley, distinguished

from the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area by its higher

temperature, lower humidity, and decreased rainfall. 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 4000 degree-days), while sites in the ``San Francisco Bay''

viticultural area range from Region I to III. This is illustrated on a

``Degree Day Map'' provided by the petitioner.

North of Altamont, the viticultural area boundary continues to

follow the inland boundary of coastal influence. (This portion of the

boundary matches the 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 average precipitation in the Central Valley is lower than in

the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. 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, the main determinants of the eastern boundary of the

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. These factors lead to

significant temperature, humidity and precipitation differences between

the areas east and west of the eastern boundary.

The southern boundary matches those of the Santa Cruz and Santa

Clara viticultural areas. As discussed in the section on climate, the

San Francisco Bay influence is diminished and the Monterey Bay

influence is felt south of the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area.

The regional northwestern prevailing wind flow direction generally

prevents the Monterey Bay influence from affecting the climate in the

viticultural area.

Monterey Bay has a very broad mouth with high mountain ranges to

both the north and south. 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

[[Page 3020]]

travels to the east and south (borne by the prevailing northwest wind)

into the Salinas Valley and up against the eastern coastal hills.

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 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.

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. 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. 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. Past Gilroy to Hollister, however, a new cooling trend

is observed due to the influence of the Monterey Bay.

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. Continuing south in the Salinas Valley, the

climate again grows warmer with increasing distance from Monterey Bay.

In summary, the southern boundary of the ``San Francisco Bay''

viticultural 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.

The western boundary of the ``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. 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.

Just north of the City of Santa Cruz, the western boundary turns

east excluding a small portion of Santa Cruz County from the

viticultural area, as it was from the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural

area. The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area has been excluded from

the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area as discussed above. 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, the main determinant of the western boundary of the proposed

viticultural area includes 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

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.

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.

This pattern is modified by a few gaps and passes in the mountain

ranges that allow marine influences to spread farther inland without

obstruction. 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. 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 ``San Francisco Bay''

viticultural area. This interaction has two principal effects: (1) to

allow the coastal influence of the Pacific Ocean to extend farther east

than otherwise possible, and (2) to modify that coastal influence

because of the moderating effects of Bay waters on surrounding weather.

Boundaries

In the original proposal, a small part of the east end of the

Livermore Valley was omitted. This newly described area most accurately

completes the description and designation of the climatic and

geographic zones for Livermore Valley and has been added to the new

``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area by ATF. This area adds less

than three square miles to the viticultural area and approximately 350

acres of wine grapes.

Amendment of the Boundaries of the Central Coast Viticultural Area

In conjunction with establishing the ``San Francisco Bay''

viticultural area, ATF is amending the boundaries of the Central Coast

viticultural area to encompass the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural

area as proposed by the petitioners and discussed in Notice No. 856.

An examination of the three large viticultural areas on the

California coast reveals a gap between Monterey and

[[Page 3021]]

Marin, where many acres of existing and potential vineyards are not

represented by any viticultural area. The revised Central Coast

viticultural area continues the logical pattern already established in

the organization of viticultural areas on the California coast. The

expanded Central Coast viticultural area is a larger area that ties

together several smaller sub-appellations (Santa Clara Valley, 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 ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area), all of

which are dominated by the same geographic and general marine

influences that create their climate. 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 previous

Central Coast boundaries.

The Name, Central Coast, as Referring to the Counties Surrounding

San Francisco Bay

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

previously recognized as the Central Coast viticultural area. In

support of this, are the following 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 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.

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.''

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.

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. Finally, a vineyard and winery map published by Sally

Taylor and Friends in the 1980's includes Santa Cruz County on the map

entitled ``North Central Coast.''

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 area.

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.

Section 25236 of the 1955 California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act

allowed 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.

While ``central coastal counties'' is not a recognized viticultural

area under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, this law is

mentioned solely to support the fact that the counties surrounding San

Francisco Bay have been accepted in California as belonging within the

place name ``Central Coast.''

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 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 sources discussed above demonstrate that the counties included

in the revised Central Coast boundaries are commonly and historically

known as being within the place-name ``Central Coast.''

The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area has been excluded from

the revised Central Coast viticultural area for the same reasons cited

above for excluding it from the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural

area.

Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil,

Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish the

Viticultural Features of the Area From Surrounding Areas

Coastal Climate and Marine Influence

The coastal climate of the Central Coast viticultural area is the

principal feature which unifies the area and distinguishes it from

surrounding areas. An indication of the ``coastal climate'' effect on

the area is the difference between July and September temperatures.

September (fall) is usually warmer than July (summer) in coastal areas,

while the reverse is true in continental areas. 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. 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. These air

flows from the Pacific Ocean invade the land mass through gaps in the

coast range. Thus, 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

[[Page 3022]]

temperatures in each city, which constitutes the measure of ``coastal''

character. Continental cities (Antioch to Madera), which are outside

the previous and revised 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. 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).

Within the extension, the climate acts in an identical manner to

the area in the previous Central Coast viticultural area. This claim is

supported by Table I, demonstrating that locations within the 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 was

attached to the petition. Accordingly, the data presented above

establishes that the Central Coast boundary should be revised to

accurately reflect the extent of the Central Coast climate.

The ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area and the Central Coast

viticultural area lie within the same botanic zone according to the

Sunset Western Garden Book published for 55 years by the editors of

Sunset Magazine. 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, and 17.

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 revision to the Central Coast viticultural area also lies within

these zones.

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. The Climatic Regions Map from

Atlas of California supports the Mediterranean climate claim. 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 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 C), with partial Csbn climate (more than thirty

days of fog) along the coast.

It is due to this coastal climate (mainly fog and wind), that the

degree of marine influence in the revised Central Coast viticultural

area is similar to the degree of marine influence found at other places

inside the previous boundaries of the 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 revised viticultural area is similar to other areas included in

Central Coast. The fog extends inland to approximately the same extent

throughout the revised viticultural area. The ``Retreat of Fog'' map

submitted with the petition also shows the similarity in the duration

of fog in the previous and revised Central Coast viticultural area. The

similar fog pattern is most evident along the coastal areas of Big Sur,

Monterey Bay and San Francisco.

Topography

Santa Cruz and the other San Francisco Bay Counties share the

Central Coast's terrain. One of the major California coast range gaps

which produces the climate within the previous Central Coast boundaries

lies within the revision to the Central Coast. 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. The Golden Gate and Monterey Bay

allow the ocean influence to enter into the previous Central Coast

viticultural area creating its coastal climate which is the unifying

and distinguishing feature of the area. The main gap in the previous

Central Coast viticultural area, the Monterey Bay allows marine air and

fog from the Pacific Ocean to travel south and inland, into the Salinas

Valley. This feature creates the 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 North-

Westerly 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. 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.

Although the Golden Gate and San Francisco Bay are primary

influences on the previous Central Coast climate, neither shoreline was

included in the previous Central Coast boundary. The revision to the

Central Coast viticultural area logically extends the previous Central

Coast boundaries to include the shores of the Golden Gate and San

Francisco Bay.

Boundaries

The 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 with the

exception of the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area. The ``San

Francisco Bay'' viticultural area adds approximately 639 square miles

to Central Coast. This area contains 2,827 acres planted to grapes. In

the original proposal, a small part of the east end of the Livermore

Valley was omitted. This newly described area most accurately completes

the description and designation of the climatic and geographic zones

for Livermore Valley and has been added to the revised

[[Page 3023]]

Central Coast viticultural area. This area adds less than three square

miles to the viticultural area and approximately 350 acres of wine

grapes.

The 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 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 changes to the western boundary, the California

coastline, consists of extending the boundary north to the Golden Gate.

The 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 eastern boundary follows the previous boundary of

the Central Coast viticultural area. North of Altamont, the boundary

extension excludes the easternmost range of coastal mountains. The

eastern boundary includes Martinez and Concord, but excludes Antioch,

and the eastern portion of Contra Costa County.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 C.F.R. Part 1320, do

not apply to this final rule because there is no requirement to collect

information.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

It is hereby certified that this 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 regulation is not a significant

regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,

this final rule is not subject to the analysis required by this

Executive Order.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document is David W. Brokaw,

Regulations Division, 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 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.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

Par. 2. Section 9.75 is amended by removing the word ``and'' from

paragraph (b)(17), by adding paragraphs (b)(19) through (b)(41), by

revising the introductory text of paragraph (c), by removing paragraphs

(c)(2) through (c)(13) and adding new paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(16)

and, redesignating existing paragraphs (c)(14) through (c)(40) as

paragraphs (c)(17) through (c)(43).

Sec. 9.75 Central Coast.

* * * * *

(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; and

(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. The Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area is

excluded. (The boundaries of the Santa Cruz Mountains viticultural area

are described in 27 CFR Sec. 9.31.)

* * * * *

(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 Quadrangle)

[[Page 3024]]

(3) From this point, the boundary proceeds east on the San

Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to the Alameda County shoreline. (Oakland

West Quadrangle)

(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 Quadrangle)

(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 Quadrangle)

(6) The boundary proceeds in southeasterly direction in a straight

line to Mt. Diablo elevation 3,849. (Clayton Quadrangle)

(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 Quadrangle)

(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 Quadrangle)

(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 Quadrangle)

(10) Then proceed south along the eastern boundaries of Sections

18, 19, 30, and 31 in Township 2 South, Range 3 East to the southeast

corner of Section 31. (Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle)

(11) Then proceed east along the southern border of Section 32,

Township 2 South, Range 3 East to the northwest corner of Section 4.

(Altamont Quadrangle)

(12) Then proceed south along the western border of Sections 4 and

9. (Altamont Quadrangle)

(13) Then proceed south along the western border of Section 16

approximately 4275 feet to the point where the 1100 meter elevation

contour intersects the western border of Section 16. (Altamont

Quadrangle)

(14) Then proceed in a southeasterly direction along the 1100 meter

elevation contour to the intersection of the southern border of Section

21 with the 1100 meter elevation contour. (Altamont Quadrangle)

(15) Then proceed west to the southwest corner of Section 20.

(Altamont Quadrangle)

(16) Then proceed south along the western boundaries of Sections 29

and 32, Township 3 South, Range 3 East and then south along the western

boundaries of Sections 5, 8, 17, 20, Township 4 South, Range 3 East to

the southwest corner of Section 20. (Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle)

* * * * *

Par. 3. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.157 to read as

follows:

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;

(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; and

[[Page 3025]]

(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 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 Santa Cruz

Mountains viticultural area is excluded (see 27 CFR 9.31.) 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, to the southwest corner of

Section 20, in Township 3 South, Range 3 East.

(14) Then east along the southern boundary of Sections 20, and 21,

in Township 3 South, Range 3 East on the Altamont Quadrangle to the

1100 meter elevation contour.

(15) Then, along the 1100 meter contour in a northwesterly

direction to the intersection with the western boundary of Section 16,

Township 3 South, Range 3 East on the Altamont Quadrangle.

(16) Then north along the eastern boundary of Sections 17, 8, and 5

in Township 3 South, Range 3 East to the northeast corner of Section 5.

(17) Then proceed west along the northern border of Section 5 to

the northwest corner of Section 5.

(18) Then 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.

(19) 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.

(20) Then proceed due north to Brushy Peak (elevation 1,702) on the

Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle.

(21) 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.

(22) Then proceed in a northwesterly direction in a straight line

to Mulligan Hill (elevation 1,438) on the Clayton Quadrangle.

(23) 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.

(24) 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.

(25) Then proceed west on the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge to

the San Francisco County shoreline on the San Francisco North

Quadrangle.

(26) 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.

(27) Then proceed northeasterly along Majors Creek to its

intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton Quadrangle.

(28) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line in a generally

easterly/northeasterly direction to its intersection with Bull Creek on

the Felton Quadrangle.

(29) Then proceed along Bull Creek to its intersection with Highway

9 on the Felton Quadrangle.

(30) Then proceed along Highway 9 in a northerly direction to its

intersection with Felton Empire Road.

(31) Then proceed along Felton Empire Road in a westerly direction

to its intersection with the 400 foot contour line on the Felton

Quadrangle.

(32) Then proceed along the 400 foot contour line (across the

Laurel, Soquel, Watsonville West and Loma Prieta Quadrangles) to its

intersection with Highway 152 on the Watsonville East Quadrangle.

(33) 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.

(34) 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.

(35) 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.

[[Page 3026]]

(36) 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.

(37) 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.

(38) Then proceed northeast along Pacheco Creek approximately .5

mile to the beginning point.

Signed: November 19, 1998.

John W. Magaw,

Director.

Approved: December 24, 1998.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 99-1209 Filed 1-19-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-31-P