[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46204-46210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18705]



[[Page 46204]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2014-0007; Notice No.145]
RIN 1514-AC10


Proposed Expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills Viticultural Area

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to 
expand the approximately 33,380-acre ``Sta. Rita Hills'' viticultural 
area in Santa Barbara County, California, by approximately 2,296 acres. 
The established Sta. Rita Hills viticultural area and the proposed 
expansion area are located entirely within the larger Santa Ynez Valley 
and Central Coast viticultural areas. TTB designates viticultural areas 
to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to 
allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites 
comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments on this notice to one of the 
following addresses. Comments submitted by other methods, including 
email, will not be accepted.
     Internet: http://www.regulations.gov (via the online 
comment form for this notice as posted within Docket No. TTB-2014-0007 
at ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal);
     U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, 
Washington, DC 20005; or
     Hand delivery/courier in lieu of mail: Alcohol and Tobacco 
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 
20005.

    Please Note: See the Public Participation section of this notice 
for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, 
and for information on how to request a public hearing or view or 
obtain copies of the petition and supporting materials.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and 
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 
Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Viticultural Areas

TTB Authority

    Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe 
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt 
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among 
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading 
statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with 
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act 
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various 
authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated 
December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions 
and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.
    Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the 
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their 
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets 
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the 
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 
lists the approved American viticultural areas.

Definition

    Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) 
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of 
the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in 
part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and 
consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other 
characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its 
geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to 
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and 
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of 
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine 
produced in that area.

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) 
outlines the procedure for proposing the establishment of an AVA and 
provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a 
grape-growing region as an AVA. Petitioners may use the same procedures 
to request changes involving existing AVAs. Section 9.12 of the TTB 
regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions requesting 
the modification of AVAs. Petitions to expand an established AVA must 
include the following:
     Evidence that the region within the proposed expansion 
area boundary is nationally or locally known by the name of the 
established AVA;
     An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of 
the proposed expansion area;
     A narrative description of the features of the proposed 
expansion area affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, 
physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed expansion area 
similar to the established AVA and distinguish it from adjacent areas 
outside the established AVA boundary;
     A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey 
(USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed expansion area, with 
the boundary of the proposed expansion area clearly drawn thereon; and
     A detailed narrative description of the proposed expansion 
area boundary based on USGS map markings.

Petition To Expand the Sta. Rita Hills Viticultural Area

    TTB received a petition from Patrick L. Shabram, on behalf of John 
Sebastiano Vineyards and Pence Ranch Vineyards, proposing to expand the 
established Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The Sta. Rita Hills AVA (27 CFR 9.162) 
was established by T.D. ATF-454, published in the Federal Register on 
May 31, 2001 (66 FR 29476).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Sta. Rita Hills AVA was originally established under the 
name ``Santa Rita Hills.'' The AVA name was later abbreviated to 
``Sta. Rita Hills'' in order to prevent possible confusion between 
wines bearing the Santa Rita Hills appellation and the Santa Rita 
brand name used by a Chilean winery. For details, see T.D. TTB-37, 
published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72710).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sta. Rita Hills AVA, which covers approximately 33,380 acres, 
is located in Santa Barbara County, California, between the towns of 
Lompoc to the west and Buellton to the east. The Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
and the proposed expansion area are located within the Santa Ynez 
Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.54), which is also entirely within Santa Barbara 
County. The Santa Ynez Valley AVA is, in turn, within the larger 
multicounty Central Coast AVA (27 CFR

[[Page 46205]]

9.75). The Sta. Rita Hills AVA and the proposed expansion area do not 
overlap any other established or proposed AVAs.
    The proposed expansion area is located along a portion of the 
existing eastern boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The proposed 
expansion would move a portion of the AVA's existing boundary further 
to the east, to a road within a north-to-south canyon, named 
``Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos Blancos,'' located west of Buellton. The 
expansion area contains approximately 2,296 acres and three commercial 
vineyards, two of which are currently divided by the existing AVA 
boundary (the Rio Vista Vineyard and the John Sebastiano Vineyard).
    According to the petition, the climate, topography, soils, and 
native vegetation of the proposed expansion area are similar to those 
of the established AVA. Unless otherwise noted, all information and 
data pertaining to the proposed expansion area contained in this 
document are from the petition and its supporting exhibits. (The 
expansion petition, its addendums, and its exhibits are posted for 
public viewing on the Regulations.gov Web site (www.regulations.gov) 
within Docket No. TTB-2014-0007 as ``supporting documents.'')

Name Evidence

    The petition provides evidence that the proposed expansion area is 
associated with the name ``Sta. Rita Hills.'' The name ``Sta. Rita 
Hills'' is an abbreviation of ``Santa Rita Hills,'' which is the name 
of the major geographical feature of both the established AVA and the 
proposed expansion area. The petition notes that the USGS Board on 
Geographic Names defines the geographic feature known as the Santa Rita 
Hills as a ridge ``bound on the south by Santa Ynez River and on the 
north by Santa Rita Valley, just east of the community of Lompoc.'' A 
1906 decision card, issued by the USGS Board on Geographic Names to 
define a geographic feature more specifically, describes the Santa Rita 
Hills as ``[h]ills, between Santa Ynez and Santa Rita Valleys, east of 
Lompoc, extending to the mouth of the Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos 
Blancos, Santa Barbara County, Cal.'' Evidence provided in the original 
Sta. Rita Hills petition and discussed in T.D. ATF-454 demonstrates 
that the hills are still known as the ``Santa Rita Hills,'' and that 
other features within the AVA share the ``Santa Rita'' name, including 
the hydrological feature known as the Santa Rita Uplands Basin and the 
historic Santa Rita Land Grant and Rancho Santa Rita.
    As noted above, the petition proposes to move a portion of the 
existing eastern boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA to a road located 
within the canyon known as Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos Blancos, and the 
proposed expansion area does not extend east of that canyon. Therefore, 
based on the definition of the Santa Rita Hills in the 1906 US Board on 
Geographic Names decision card, the proposed expansion area is located 
within the region defined as the Santa Rita Hills. Furthermore, 
although the boundaries of the proposed expansion area extend north of 
the Santa Rita Valley and south of the Santa Ynez River, TTB notes that 
the current Sta. Rita Hills AVA boundary also encompasses land north of 
the Santa Rita Valley and south of the Santa Ynez River, and the 
proposed expansion area boundaries do not extend any farther north or 
south than the current AVA boundaries.

Boundary Evidence

    The current eastern boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA resembles a 
staircase with three ``steps'' that, progressing in a north-to-south 
direction, take the AVA's boundary progressively further to the east. 
The proposed expansion area abuts the middle and bottom ``steps''. The 
existing boundary's bottom ``step'' currently splits the Rio Vista 
Vineyard, and the middle ``step'' currently divides the John Sebastiano 
Vineyard, placing a portion of these two vineyards within the proposed 
expansion area. The third vineyard within the proposed expansion area, 
Pence Ranch, is located east of the John Sebastiano Vineyard and west 
of the Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos Blancos. The locations of the three 
vineyards are marked on the map in Exhibit J of the petition.
    The proposed expansion area's southeastern-most point marks the 
beginning point of its boundary and is located at the northeast corner 
of the bottom ``step'' formed by the current AVA boundary, at the peak 
of an unnamed 1,174-foot hilltop, south of Santa Rosa Road. The 
proposed boundary then proceeds northwest to the intersection of Santa 
Rosa Road and an unnamed, unimproved road east of a gaging station. The 
proposed boundary then follows the unimproved road west, crossing the 
Santa Ynez River, to the 320-foot elevation contour and continues along 
that meandering contour to an unnamed, unimproved road running along 
the bottom of the Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos Blancos. The proposed 
boundary then follows that unimproved road north-northwest through the 
canyon where the road then intersects with a jeep trail at the 1,635-
foot elevation point, and the boundary finally proceeds northwest in a 
straight line to an unnamed hilltop with an elevation of 1,443 feet. 
The 1,443-foot elevation point is where the proposed boundary rejoins 
the current Sta. Rita Hills AVA eastern boundary, at the southeastern 
corner of the top ``step''.
    Although the terrain immediately to the east of the proposed 
expansion area is similar to the terrain within the proposed expansion 
area, the petitioner did not include this land in the proposed 
expansion area because the area east of the canyon is not known as 
``Santa Rita Hills.'' Additionally, farther east beyond the proposed 
eastern boundary, the flat, level floodplain of the Santa Ynez River 
becomes broader and the hills begin to take on a north-south 
orientation, compared to the east-west orientation of the hills of the 
proposed expansion area and the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The area 
immediately to the south and west of the proposed expansion area is the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA, which has similar topography, climate, and soils, 
which will be discussed later in this document. The area to the north 
of the proposed expansion area contains the higher elevations of the 
Purisima Hills, which are also to the north of the current Santa Rita 
Hills AVA boundary.

Distinguishing Features

    According to the petition, the proposed expansion area contains the 
same climate, topography, soils, and native vegetation that distinguish 
the established Sta. Rita Hills AVA from the surrounding region. 
Because the established Sta. Rita Hills AVA is located to the immediate 
west and south of the proposed expansion area, the distinguishing 
features of the proposed expansion area will only be contrasted with 
the regions to the north and east.
Climate
    According to the expansion petition and T.D. ATF-454, the defining 
characteristic of the established Sta. Rita Hills AVA is its cooler, 
marine-influenced climate. Cool air from the Pacific Ocean moves west-
to-east across the Sta. Rita Hills AVA along two paths--the Santa Ynez 
River and the Santa Rita Valley. The Pacific air travelling through the 
AVA via the Santa Rita Valley exits the AVA through a narrow gap in the 
mountains along State Highway 246, which separates the Purisima Hills 
(to the north of the AVA) from the Santa Rosa Hills (to the south of 
the AVA). The marine air moderates the temperatures within the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA and also brings nighttime

[[Page 46206]]

and early-morning fog to the region. The moderated temperatures allow 
for the production of cool-climate wine grapes such as Chardonnay and 
Pinot Noir.
    TTB notes that T.D. ATF-454 does not include climate data from 
within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA or the region immediately to the east of 
the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, which is now the location of the proposed 
expansion area. Instead, T.D. ATF-454 includes data from Lompoc, the 
town adjacent to the western border of the AVA, and from Lake Cachuma, 
which is farther east of the proposed expansion area and within the 
easternmost portion of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA. TTB notes that Lake 
Cachuma is near the region that now contains the Happy Canyon of Santa 
Barbara AVA (27 CFR 9.217). T.D. ATF-454 states that the region around 
Lake Cachuma is significantly warmer than the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
because ``the coastal influence is not nearly as pronounced in the 
Santa Ynez Valley east of Highway 101 and the Buellton Flats.'' TTB 
notes that U.S. Highway 101 runs north-south through the town of 
Buellton, approximately 4 miles due east of the current Sta. Rita Hills 
AVA's eastern boundary, as measured from the point where State Route 
246 crosses that boundary as shown on the USGS Los Alamos and Solvang 
quadrangle maps. Lake Cachuma and the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA 
are approximately 15 miles east of Highway 101. T.D.-ATF-454 also 
states that the regions east of U.S. Highway 101 typically do not grow 
Pinot Noir or Chardonnay because the climate is more suitable for 
growing grapes that require ``significantly higher temperature * * * 
for adequate ripening,'' such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, 
Merlot, Sauvignon Blanc, and Mourvedre.
    At the time the Sta. Rita Hills AVA was established, viticulture 
did not exist within the proposed expansion area, and the eastern 
boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA was believed to be the limit of the 
marine-moderated climate that was suitable for growing cool-climate 
wine grapes such as Pinot Noir. However, three vineyards are now 
established within the proposed expansion area, and all three vineyards 
grow Pinot Noir, demonstrating that a marine-moderated climate does 
extend beyond the existing eastern boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. 
Additionally, marine fog is common within the proposed expansion area 
at night and in the early morning during the growing season, as it is 
within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. As evidence, the petition includes a 
photo of fog settled over the Pence Ranch Vineyards, the easternmost 
vineyard within the proposed expansion area.
    The petition also includes temperature data from five weather 
stations located within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA (Locations A, B, C, D, 
and E), one weather station located within the proposed expansion area 
(Location F, between the John Sebastiano Vineyard and the Pence Ranch 
Vineyard), and one weather station (Location G) within the Ballard 
Canyon AVA (27 CFR 9.230). TTB notes that the Ballard Canyon AVA is 
approximately 4 miles northeast of Buellton and is closer to the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA and the proposed expansion area than Lake Cachuma is. 
The locations of each of the weather stations are shown on a map in 
Exhibit G of the expansion petition. Table 1, shown below, lists the 
growing season (April through October) degree day heat summations \2\ 
for the seven weather stations. Although the petition also includes 
data from 2007, 2010, and 2011 for Locations A, B, E, and G, Table 1 
includes only data from 2008 and 2009 because those are the only two 
years for which data was available from all seven stations. The 
additional temperature data is in the petition, which may be viewed 
online at the Regulations.gov Web site (www.regulations.gov) within 
Docket No. TTB-2014-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Heat summations were calculated using the Growing Degree Day 
Method, which calculates degree day units based on an average daily 
temperature and uses the base temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit 
(F) as the minimum possible temperature. To calculate the degree day 
units for a given day, the day's highest temperature is added to 
either the day's lowest temperature or the base temperature of 50, 
whichever is higher, and then divided by 2. The difference between 
the resulting number and 50 is the number of degree day units 
assigned to that day. For example, if the highest temperature for a 
given day is 70 degrees F and the lowest temperature is 40 degrees 
F, the Growing Degree Day method would calculate the average 
temperature as (70 + 50) / 2 = 60, and that day would be assigned 10 
degree day units (60 is 10 more than the base of 50). This method 
contrasts with the Winkler heat summation method, which uses the sum 
of the average monthly high temperature above the base of 50 degree 
F multiplied by 30 days per month during the growing season of April 
through October. The petition states that the Growing Degree Day 
Method often results in a higher degree day unit total than the 
Winkler method. As an example, Station E had a heat summation of 
2,751 degree days in 2010 using the Growing Degree Day Method, but 
had 2,677 degree days in 2010 using the Winkler method.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Location                                   2008            2009           Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sta. Rita Hills AVA:
    Location A..................................................           2,869           2,786           2,827
    Location B..................................................           2,997           2,967           2,982
    Location C..................................................           3,008           2,944           2,976
    Location D..................................................           3,249           3,146           3,197
    Location E..................................................           3,363           3,306           3,334
Proposed Expansion Area (Location F)............................           3,321           3,245           3,283
Ballard Canyon AVA (Location G).................................           3,859           3,702           3,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data in Table 1 shows that within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, 
degree day unit accumulation varies depending on the location. 
Locations in the western portion of the AVA accumulate fewer degree day 
units over the course of the growing season than locations in the 
eastern portion, and all locations within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA have 
fewer degree day units than the Ballard Canyon AVA farther to the east.
    The table also shows that the proposed expansion area is cooler 
than the Ballard Canyon AVA and warmer than most locations within the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA except Location E, which is located in the 
southeastern portion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, directly south of the 
proposed expansion area. Although only data from 2008 and 2009 is 
included in Table 1, the petition includes additional data gathered 
from the Location E station during 2007, 2010, and 2011 that shows 
Location E has consistently warmer temperatures than the other 
locations within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. A map of current vineyard 
locations within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, included as Exhibit J of the 
petition, shows the Location E station is in an area of active 
viticulture with at least five vineyards nearby. An internet search by 
TTB showed that all of the

[[Page 46207]]

vineyards shown on Exhibit J as being near the Location E station grow 
Pinot Noir, indicating that even though the temperatures near the 
Location E station may be warmer than other locations within the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA, the temperatures are still cool enough to allow for the 
production of cool-climate grapes such as Pinot Noir that are 
characteristic of the AVA.
    Finally, the data also shows that degree day unit accumulations 
within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA are not entirely uniform and generally 
increase from east to west. For instance, there is a difference of 507 
degree days between the average accumulations for the coolest station, 
Location A, and the warmest station, Location E. By comparison, the 
difference between the average accumulations for Location A and 
Location F, located within the proposed expansion area, is 456, placing 
the proposed expansion area within the degree day range found within 
the existing Sta. Rita Hills AVA.
    The petition also included graphs showing the average monthly high 
temperatures for the same seven locations during the 2008 and 2009 
growing seasons. The graphs indicate that the average monthly highs for 
the proposed expansion area are within the range of temperatures for 
the five stations within the existing Sta. Rita Hills AVA. 
Additionally, the average October highs within the proposed expansion 
area and the five Sta. Rita Hills locations were almost identical for 
both years, with temperatures ranging from 80 to 81 degrees F for 2008 
and approximately 75 to 76 degrees F for 2009.
    At the time the petition was submitted, climate data from within 
the proposed expansion area was only available from 2008 and 2009. 
However, in 2012, a private weather station was placed at the Pence 
Ranch Vineyards within the proposed expansion area (Location H), 
slightly farther to the east than the previous weather station located 
within the proposed expansion area (Location F). The year for which 
data from an entire growing season was available was 2013, and the 
petitioner submitted the data as Addendum 5 to the petition. Growing 
season data for 2013 was also gathered from two weather stations 
previously used, Location D (John Sebastiano Vineyards, within the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA) and Location G (within the Ballard Canyon AVA). 
Location D was chosen because it was the easternmost weather station 
still existing within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and could be expected to 
have temperatures similar to that of the proposed expansion area. Table 
2, shown below, compares the degree day heat summations for the three 
stations.

                                 Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2013 Degree
                        Location                             day heat
                                                             summation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed expansion area (Location H)....................           3,318
Sta. Rita Hills AVA (Location D)........................           3,169
Ballard Canyon (Location G).............................           3,797
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the 2013 degree day heat summations within the proposed 
expansion area are greater than those from the station within the Sta. 
Rita Hills, the summations are more similar to those within the 
established AVA than those within the Ballard Canyon AVA, farther to 
the east. There is only a 4.7 percent difference between the 2013 
summations for the proposed expansion area (Location H) and the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA (Location D), while the 2013 summations for the Ballard 
Canyon AVA (Location G) are 14.4 percent higher than those of the 
proposed expansion area. The petitioner notes that the 4.7 percent 
difference between Location H and Location D is within the variability 
found in the analysis of temperature data from locations solely within 
the Sta. Rita Hills. For example, degree day heat summations from 2008-
2011 at Location E, in the southeastern corner of the AVA, were an 
average of 5.1 percent higher than those at Location D, in the 
northeastern corner of the AVA. The petitioner also states that the 
2013 degree day heat summations for Location H, within the proposed 
expansion area, are lower than both the 2007 and 2008 summations for 
Location E, which were 3,360 and 3,363, respectively. These comparisons 
demonstrate that while the proposed expansion area may accumulate more 
degree days than several of the weather station locations within the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA, there are locations within the AVA that do reach 
higher annual degree day summations than the proposed expansion area.
    Finally, the petitioner submitted two graphs showing the 2013 daily 
degree day accumulation for Locations D, H, and G. The graphs show that 
although Location H (within the proposed expansion area) has a higher 
growing season degree day accumulation than Location D (within the 
existing Sta. Rita Hills AVA), degree day accumulations are similar for 
the two stations for every date, with many dates showing identical 
numbers and a few showing slightly lower accumulations at Location H. 
By contrast, the graph comparing the proposed expansion area (Location 
H) to Ballard Canyon (Location G) shows a significantly higher daily 
degree day total for Ballard Canyon, very few days showing close to or 
equal degree totals, and no days showing fewer totals for Ballard 
Canyon. In sum, this data further demonstrates that the temperatures 
within the proposed expansion area are more similar to those of the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA than those of the regions farther to the east, such 
as the Ballard Canyon AVA.
Topography
    T.D. ATF-454 describes the topography of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as 
``an oak-studded, hill-laden maritime throat that runs east to west, a 
few miles east of Lompoc to a few miles west of the Buellton Flats.'' 
Elevations within the AVA range from approximately 180 feet to 1,700 
feet. The Santa Ynez River and its floodplain valley run east-to-west 
through the southern portion of the AVA, and the east-to-west Santa 
Rita Valley is in the northern portion of the AVA. The river and the 
Santa Rita Valley provide conduits for cool Pacific Ocean air to enter 
and travel across the AVA. East of the Santa Rita Valley is the narrow 
wind gap that separates the Purisima Hills from the Santa Rosa Hills.
    After the marine air exits the AVA, either via the wind gap or the 
Santa Ynez River valley, it becomes warmer and drier as it travels 
farther inland. Because of the difficulty in pinpointing an exact point 
at which the cool marine air characteristic of the AVA begins to 
diminish, T.D. ATF-454 states that the original eastern boundary was 
drawn based on ``viticultural viability (primarily hillside and 
alluvial basin plantings) and the coastal influence suitable for cool-
climate still winegrape production.''
    The proposed expansion is comprised primarily of rolling hills. As 
noted above, the U.S. Board of Geographic Names considers the proposed 
expansion area to be geographically part of the Santa Rita Hills. The 
southeastern corner of the proposed expansion area does include a small 
portion of the flatter Santa Ynez River alluvial floodplain, between 
State Highway 246 and Santa Rosa Road, where the floodplain narrows 
significantly. Elevations within the proposed expansion area range from 
280 feet along the Santa Ynez River to a 1,443-foot hilltop where the 
northern boundary of the expansion area rejoins the existing Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA boundary.

[[Page 46208]]

    The proposed expansion area's location along the Santa Ynez River 
and directly east of the Santa Rita wind gap allows cooling marine air 
to enter the proposed expansion region. The expansion petition 
speculates that the original Sta. Rita Hills eastern boundary was drawn 
where the valley of the Santa Ynez River narrows significantly because 
it was presumed at the time of the original petition that the narrowing 
of the valley restricted the flow of cool air from moving farther east. 
However, the expansion petition states that the narrowing of the valley 
instead acts as a funnel and intensifies the movement of cool air 
inland. Additionally, the small wind gap east of the Santa Rita valley 
provides an additional channel for cool air reach the proposed 
expansion area.
Soils
    T.D. ATF-454 states that the most common soil types within the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA are ``loams, sandy loams, silt loams, and clay loams'' 
which contain ``large percentages of dune sand, marine deposits, recent 
alluvium, river wash, and terrace deposits * * *.'' T.D. ATF-454 
contrasts these soils types with those of the region farther to the 
east, which contain ``a higher percentage of gravelly and clay loams.''
    According to the expansion petition, ``[w]ithin the Sta. Rita Hills 
AVA, no one soil type is dominant and a wide variety of soils exist * * 
*.'' However, the soils of the proposed expansion area are ``not 
inconsistent with'' the soils of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. An analysis 
of soils from the Pence Ranch Vineyard conducted by Terra Spase, a 
leading viticulture analysis company, showed that the surface soils 
were primarily of loam and clay, with pockets of silty clay loam and 
loam. Subsurface soils range from clay to sandy clay loam.
    A map included with the petition and based on a National Resource 
Conservation Service soil survey also shows that the soils within the 
proposed expansion area are consistent with those of the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA. The map shows that the most prevalent soils within the 
proposed expansion area are of the Tierra, Linne, and Chamise series, 
which are also prevalent in the region of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
adjacent to the proposed expansion area. Other soil series found in 
both the proposed expansion area and the Sta. Rita Hills AVA include 
Corralitos, Arnold Sand, and Mocho series. The map further indicates 
that the most prevalent soil series (Tierra, Linne and Chamise series) 
in the proposed expansion area are not as prevalent farther to the 
east, near Buellton.
    In summary, the expansion petition states that although no one type 
of soil dominates both the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and the proposed 
expansion area, the soils do further demonstrate the similarities 
between the proposed expansion area and the Sta. Rita Hills AVA.
Native Vegetation
    T.D. ATF-454 describes the hillsides of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as 
``oak-studded.'' Oak trees are also present within the proposed 
expansion area. Although T.D. ATF-454 mentions that the hills of the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA are covered with oaks, the expansion petition 
further explains that with regard to the oaks in the established AVA, 
the majority of them are live oaks. By contrast, the petition 
continues, valley oaks become more numerous in the warmer regions east 
of U.S. Highway 101, and live oaks are virtually absent, for example, 
within the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA, approximately 8 miles 
east of Buellton. The petitioner states that, consistent with the 
established AVA, live oaks, but not valley oaks, are present within the 
proposed expansion area, providing further evidence that growing 
conditions are similar within the proposed expansion area and the 
existing Sta. Rita Hills AVA.

Comparison of the Proposed Sta. Rita Hills AVA Expansion Area to the 
Existing Santa Ynez Valley and Central Coast AVAs

Santa Ynez Valley AVA
    The Santa Ynez Valley AVA was established by T.D. ATF-132, 
published in the Federal Register on April 15, 1983 (48 FR 16252). The 
Santa Ynez Valley AVA encompasses the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, as well as 
the Ballard Canyon AVA and the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA.
    According to T.D. ATF-132, the Santa Ynez Valley AVA is the valley 
that contains the Santa Ynez River and is bound by the Purisima Hills 
and San Rafael Mountains to the north, Lake Cachuma and the Los Padres 
National Forest to the east, the Santa Ynez Mountains to the south, and 
the Santa Rita Hills to the west. Vineyards are planted on elevations 
ranging from 200 feet along the Santa Ynez River to 1,500 feet in the 
foothills of the San Rafael Mountains. The Santa Ynez Valley AVA has 
less marine influence from the Pacific Ocean than the more coastal 
regions to the west because the hills to the west of the region prevent 
much of the marine influence from reaching deep into the valley, 
resulting in a less moderated climate and overall warmer temperatures 
than those of areas closer to the coast. However, even without a heavy 
marine influence, fog is still common at elevations between 1,000 and 
1,200 feet.
    The proposed expansion area has elevations similar to those of the 
larger Santa Ynez Valley AVA. However, because of its smaller size, the 
proposed expansion area lacks the diversity of topography found within 
the larger AVA. The gently rolling hills of the proposed expansion area 
are more similar to the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Like the larger Santa Ynez 
Valley AVA, the proposed expansion area is also warmer than regions 
closer to the coast. However, the proposed expansion area is cooler and 
receives more marine influence and fog than the Ballard Canyon and 
Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVAs farther to the east within the Santa 
Ynez Valley AVA, making the climate of the proposed expansion area 
similar to that of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA.
Central Coast AVA
    The large, 1 million-acre Central Coast AVA was established by T.D. 
ATF-216, published in the Federal Register on October 24, 1985 (50 FR 
43128). The Central Coast AVA encompasses all or portions of the 
California counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San 
Benito, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and San 
Francisco, and it contains 28 established AVAs. T.D. ATF-216 describes 
the Central Coast AVA as extending from Santa Barbara in the south to 
the San Francisco Bay area in the north, and east from the Pacific 
coast line to the California Coastal Ranges. The only distinguishing 
feature of the California Coast AVA addressed in T.D. ATF-216 is that 
the included counties experience marine climate influence due to their 
proximity to the Pacific Ocean.
    Both the proposed expansion area and the Sta. Rita Hills AVA have 
marine-influenced climates, with cooler temperatures and more fog than 
regions farther inland. However, neither the proposed expansion area 
nor the Sta. Rita Hills AVA is as cool and wet as the regions within 
the Central Coast AVA that are closer to the coastline.

TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to expand the boundaries of the 
established Sta. Rita Hills AVA merits consideration and public 
comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

[[Page 46209]]

Boundary Description

    See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for 
expansion area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of 
this proposed rule.

Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed 
below in the proposed regulatory text.

Impact on Current Wine Labels

    Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a 
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true 
place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name 
or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of 
the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented 
by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 
CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA 
name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in 
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain 
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another 
reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler must remove 
or revise the misleading reference and obtain approval of a new label. 
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name 
or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name 
on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for 
details.
    The approval of the proposed expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
would not affect any other existing viticultural area, and would not 
affect any bottlers currently and properly using ``Sta. Rita Hills,'' 
``Santa Ynez Valley,'' or ``Central Coast'' as an appellation of origin 
or in a brand name. The expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA merely 
would allow vintners to use ``Sta. Rita Hills'' as an appellation of 
origin for wines made with grapes grown within the proposed expansion 
area if the wines otherwise meet the eligibility requirements for the 
use of the appellation.

Public Participation

Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on 
whether it should expand the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as proposed. TTB is 
specifically interested in receiving comments on the similarity of the 
proposed expansion area to the established Sta. Rita Hills AVA. In 
addition, given the location of the proposed expansion area and the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA within the existing Santa Ynez Valley and Central 
Coast AVAs, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence 
submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the 
proposed expansion area sufficiently differentiates it from the 
existing Santa Ynez Valley and Central Coast AVAs.

    Please note: (1) All commenters should read carefully the 
``General Rules for Commenting'' and ``Addresses for Submitting 
Comments'' sections below. TTB will accept only those comments sent 
by one of three approved methods noted below. Comments sent by 
email, FAX, or any other unapproved method will not be considered by 
TTB.
    (2) If you submitted correspondence to TTB regarding this matter 
prior to the publication of this document and you wish your 
correspondence to be considered by TTB as a comment, please resubmit 
your original or revised correspondence by one of the three approved 
methods noted below.

General Rules for Commenting

     Please submit your comment to TTB on or before the comment 
period closing date of October 6, 2014. Comments sent by U.S. mail must 
be postmarked on or before the comment period closing date.
     Please provide specific information in support of your 
comments. Mere statements of opposition to or support for this proposal 
are not helpful to TTB in evaluating the merits of the expansion 
petition and its evidence.
     Your comment must reference Notice No. 145 and include 
your name and mailing address. TTB does not accept anonymous comments.
     Your comment must be in English, be legible, and be 
written in language acceptable for public disclosure. Please note that, 
as explained below, all comments sent to TTB are part of the public 
record and will be made available for public viewing.
     TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB 
considers all comments as originals.
     In your comment, please clearly state if you are 
commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or 
other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your 
comment must include the entity's name as well as your name and 
position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please also enter 
the entity's name in the ``Organization'' blank of the online comment 
form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please 
submit your entity's comment on letterhead.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking by 
using one of the three methods listed below. Comments sent by other 
methods, including email or FAX, will not be considered by TTB.
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the 
online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2014-
0007 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under 
Notice No. 145 on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml">http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments 
submitted via Regulations.gov.
     Please note: You will know that your comment has been 
successfully submitted if you receive a tracking number from the 
Regulations.gov system (for example ``1jy-89zb-i7k5''). Your comment 
will not immediately appear on Regulations.gov for public viewing since 
TTB first evaluates all comments before posting them publically to the 
Regulations.gov Web site. For complete instructions on how to use 
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab.
     U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the 
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or 
have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 
1310 G Street NW., Suite 200-E, Washington, DC 20005.
    You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing 
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right 
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

Confidentiality

    All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public 
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your 
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for 
public disclosure.

Public Disclosure

    TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, the 
proposed Sta. Rita Hills expansion petition, its addendums and 
exhibits, the original Sta. Rita Hills petition and its exhibits, and 
any public comments received about this proposal on the Federal e-

[[Page 46210]]

rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov), within 
Docket No. TTB-2014-0007. A direct link to that docket is available on 
the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml 
under Notice No. 145. You may also reach the relevant docket through 
the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For 
information on how to use Regulations.gov, click on the site's ``Help'' 
tab.
    All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization 
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all 
address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous 
attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for 
posting.
    You may also view copies of this notice of proposed rulemaking, all 
related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any 
comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the 
TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 
20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. 
Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or 
similarly sized documents that may have been submitted as part of 
either the original Sta. Rita Hills petition or the petition to expand 
the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Contact TTB's information specialist at the 
above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an 
appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived 
from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a 
proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. 
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant 
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted 
this notice of proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend 
title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

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

    Authority:  27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

0
2. Section 9.162 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6), revising 
paragraphs (c)(3)-(6), redesignating paragraphs (c)(7)-(19) as 
paragraphs (c)(8)-(20), and adding a new paragraph (c)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  9.162  Sta. Rita Hills.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) ``Zaca Creek, Calif.,'' edition of 1959.
    (c) * * *
    (3) Proceed west-northwest in a straight line 0.5 mile to the 
intersection of Santa Rosa Road and an unnamed, unimproved road that 
runs just north of a marked gaging station.
    (4) Proceed west along the unnamed, unimproved road approximately 
0.4 mile to a ``T'' intersection with an unnamed, unimproved road and 
the 320-foot elevation contour, Santa Rosa Land Grant, T. 6 N, R. 32 W.
    (5) Proceed northwest along the 320-foot elevation contour, 
crossing onto the Santa Rosa Hills, Calif., Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map, 
then continue northwest, north, and northeast along the meandering 320-
foot elevation contour for approximately 1.2 miles, crossing onto the 
Solvang, Calif., Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map, and continue east then north 
along the 320-foot elevation contour approximately 0.5 miles, crossing 
onto the Zaca Creek, Calif., Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map, to the 
intersection of the 320-foot elevation contour with an unnamed, 
unimproved north-south road that follows the length of the 
Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos Blancos, San Carlos de Jonata Land Grant, T. 
6 N, R. 32 W.
    (6) Proceed north-northwest along the unnamed, unimproved road 1.2 
miles, crossing onto the Los Alamos, Calif., Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map, 
and continue along the road 1.3 miles to the marked 635-foot elevation 
point at the intersection of the road and a 4-wheel drive trail, San 
Carlos de Jonata Land Grant, T. 7 N, R. 32 W.
    (7) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 1.3 miles to 
an unnamed hilltop, elevation 1443 feet. Section 20, T. 7 N, R. 32 W.
* * * * *

    Signed: July 31, 2014.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-18705 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P