[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56492-56504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19998]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2014-0007: T.D. TTB-141; Ref: Notice No. 145]
RIN 1513-AC10


Expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills Viticultural Area

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

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.

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

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

DATES: This final rule is effective September 21, 2016.

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, dated December 
10, 2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January

[[Page 56493]]

24, 2003), 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) authorizes TTB to 
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their 
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine 
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets 
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the 
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 
lists the approved AVAs.

Definition

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

Requirements

    Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) 
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any 
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region 
as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes 
standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. 
Petitions to expand an AVA must include the following:
     Evidence that the area 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;
     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.

Online Availability of Documents

    All documents and comments discussed below in this final rule, 
including the petition to expand the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and its 
supporting documents, the notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 
145), and the comments and attached supporting documents received in 
response to that notice, are available for public viewing within Docket 
No. TTB-2014-0007 on the ``Regulations.gov'' Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to Docket No. TTB-2014-0007 is 
available under Notice No. 145 on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml.

Petition To Expand the Sta. Rita Hills AVA

    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 potential 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, which lies to the west, and Buellton, which lies 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 entirely 
within Santa Barbara County. The Santa Ynez Valley AVA is within the 
larger multicounty Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75). The Sta. Rita Hills 
AVA and the proposed expansion area do not overlap any other 
established or proposed AVA.
    The proposed expansion area is located along the existing eastern 
boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The proposed expansion area 
contains approximately 2,296 acres and three commercial vineyards, two 
of which are currently divided by the existing eastern boundary of the 
AVA. Pinot Noir and Chardonnay are among the varietals of grapes grown 
in the proposed expansion area. The proposed expansion would move a 
portion of the AVA's existing eastern boundary approximately one-half 
mile farther to the east. The new boundary would then be defined by a 
road within a north-south canyon named ``Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos 
Blancos,'' which is located west of the city of Buellton. According to 
the expansion petition, the new boundary would still be within the 
Santa Rita Hills because a 1906 decision card issued by the U.S. Board 
on Geographic Names \2\ states that the hills extend as far east as the 
mouth of the canyon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The United States Board on Geographic Names is a Federal 
body created in 1890 and established in its present form by Federal 
law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the 
Federal Government. Sharing its responsibilities with the Secretary 
of the Interior, the Board promulgates official geographic feature 
names with locative attributes as well as principles, policies, and 
procedures governing the use of domestic names, foreign names, 
Antarctic names, and undersea feature names. See http://geonames.usgs.gov/ for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the petition, the climate, topography, soils, and 
native vegetation of the proposed expansion area are similar to those 
of the established AVA. The climate of both the proposed expansion area 
and established AVA is influenced by cool winds and fog that move 
inland from the Pacific Ocean, providing a climate that is suitable for 
growing cool-climate wine grapes such as Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. The 
proposed expansion area and the established AVA contain oak-studded 
rolling hills of similar elevations. Finally, both the established AVA 
and the proposed expansion area have soils that contain loam, sand, 
silt, and clay.
    Although the proposed expansion area is more similar to the 
established Sta. Rita Hills AVA than the surrounding regions, the 
petition states that the proposed expansion area still shares some of 
the features of the surrounding Santa Ynez Valley AVA and Central Coast 
AVA. For instance, the proposed expansion area has elevations and 
rolling hills similar to those found in portions of the larger Santa 
Ynez Valley AVA. However, the proposed expansion area lacks the 
diversity of topography found within the larger Santa Ynez Valley, such 
as maze-like canyons and broad alluvial plains. The proposed expansion 
area also shares a marine-influenced climate with the Central Coast AVA 
and the western portions of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA. However, the 
proposed expansion area receives less marine-cooled air and fog than 
the portions of

[[Page 56494]]

the Central Coast AVA closer to the Pacific Ocean and more marine 
influence than the eastern regions of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA.

Publication of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice No. 145)

    TTB published Notice No. 145 in the Federal Register on August 7, 
2014 (79 FR 46204), proposing to expand the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. In the 
notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the 
name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed expansion 
area. For a detailed description of the evidence relating to the name, 
boundary, and distinguishing features of the proposed expansion area, 
and for a comparison of the distinguishing features of the proposed 
expansion area to the surrounding areas, see Notice No. 145.
    In Notice No. 145, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the 
name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of 
the petition. The comment period for Notice No. 145 was originally 
scheduled to close on October 6, 2014. On August 18, 2014, TTB received 
a letter from the chairman of the Sta. Rita Hills Winegrowers Alliance 
(comment 20) requesting a 90-day extension of the comment period in 
order to allow more time for industry members to submit comments. The 
letter stated that local grape growers and winemakers were in the 
process of bottling previous vintages and preparing for harvest and 
thus did not have time to prepare and submit comments before the close 
of the comment period.
    TTB determined that good cause existed to extend the comment 
period. Accordingly, TTB published Notice No. 145A in the Federal 
Register on September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52273), which extended the comment 
period for an additional 60 days. TTB did not extend the comment period 
for the requested 90 days because the bureau believed that neither 
Notice No. 145 nor the petition and supporting materials were 
voluminous or unusually complex, and that a 60-day extension would 
extend the comment period well past the peak of a typical harvest 
period. As a result, the comment period for Notice No. 145 closed on 
December 5, 2014.

Comments Received

    In response to Notice No. 145, TTB received a total of 121 
comments. Of these, TTB posted 117 comments for public viewing within 
Regulations.gov docket number TTB-2014-0007 (see http://www.regulations.gov/). TTB did not post three anonymous comments and 
one duplicate comment. As noted in Notice No. 145, TTB has a policy of 
not accepting anonymous comments.
    Of the 117 comments TTB posted to the docket, 91 comments oppose 
the proposed expansion, and 19 comments support the proposed expansion. 
TTB also received five comments from the petitioner in defense of his 
analyses and credentials (comments 17, 29, 47, 102, and 113). In 
addition, TTB posted one comment requesting an extension of the comment 
period (comment 20). Finally, TTB posted one comment (comment 91) that 
responds to claims made in an earlier comment (comment 83), but does 
not specifically express support for or opposition to the proposed 
expansion.
Supporting Comments Received
    TTB received 19 comments supporting the proposed expansion of the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Most of these comments assert that the 
petitioner's evidence demonstrates that the proposed expansion area is 
similar enough to the Sta. Rita Hills AVA that it should be considered 
part of the established AVA. These commenters include local vineyard 
owners and winemakers, a food and wine writer, sommeliers, a soil and 
plant nutrition consultant, and wine consumers. Of the 19 supporting 
comments, 18 provide anecdotal evidence, and 1 offers non-anecdotal 
evidence in the form of a chemical analysis of grapes grown within the 
AVA and grapes grown on the commenter's property within the proposed 
expansion area.
Opposing Comments Received
    TTB received 91 comments from 88 individual commenters who oppose 
the expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The commenters include local 
residents, local vineyard and winery owners, food and wine writers and 
bloggers, vineyard managers and consultants, the president of the 
Lompoc Valley Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, sommeliers, and 
the Sta. Rita Hills Winegrowers Alliance. Three of the 88 commenters 
submitted 2 comments each, including the Sta. Rita Hills Winegrowers 
Alliance (SRHWA), which sent in a link to a video presentation as well 
as a large package of documents that contains statements and reports 
from several experts. TTB considers the package submission from the 
SRHWA to be a single comment, even though it contains statements and 
reports from multiple persons writing on behalf of the alliance.
    The two most common reasons provided for opposing the proposed 
expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA are that the proposed expansion 
area is not known to be part of the area known as Santa Rita Hills and 
that the proposed expansion area has a different climate. Some of the 
opposing comments also question the accuracy of the petitioner's data 
collection methods and analysis.

Discussion of Comments

    In the following sections, TTB will provide a detailed discussion 
of the comments received in response to Notice No. 145 and the bureau's 
response to the comments.

Name Evidence

Opposing Comments
    Forty-one of the opposing comments address the name evidence in the 
proposed expansion petition. All of these comments state that the 
proposed expansion area is not a part of the Santa Rita Hills and is 
instead on an entirely different landmass. Some of the comments 
describe this landmass as part of the Purisima Hills. The majority, 
however, state that the proposed expansion area is located within a 
landmass known as the ``Buellton Flats,'' ``Buell Flats,'' or ``Buell 
Flat.'' Of the opposing comments that address the name evidence 
included in the expansion petition, two provide non-anecdotal evidence 
to support their claims (comments 97 and 116).
    The SRHWA submitted comment 97, a detailed comment which addresses, 
among other things, the name evidence provided in the expansion 
petition. The comment claims although the expansion petition's name 
evidence is largely based on a 1906 U.S. Board on Geographic Names 
decision card that defined the boundaries of the Santa Rita Hills, the 
decision card was essentially revoked by a 1907 USGS bulletin on oil 
resources in Santa Barbara County. One of the two authors of the 
bulletin was Ralph Arnold, the paleontologist listed on the 1906 
decision card as the ``authority'' who submitted the request to the 
U.S. Board on Geographic Names. The bulletin describes the Santa Rita 
Hills as extending as far east as ``nearly to the edge of the Santa 
Rosa [land] grant.'' The comment asserts that by this definition, the 
Santa Rita Hills would not extend as far east as the proposed expansion 
area and would, instead, end within the current boundaries of the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA.
    Comment 97 also states that USGS Geographic Names Information 
System, which provides a link to the 1906 decision card, provides three 
sets of latitude and longitude coordinates relating to the Santa Rita 
Hills. The comment claims that when mapped, these coordinates ``place 
the easternmost point of the Santa Rita Hills

[[Page 56495]]

just west of Mail Road,'' which is within the current AVA boundaries 
and approximately 2.5 miles west of the proposed expansion area. The 
comment asserts that this is further evidence that the proposed 
expansion area cannot be known as ``Sta. Rita Hills'' because the Santa 
Rita Hills do not extend into the proposed expansion area.
    Comment 97 also includes several historical newspaper articles from 
the Lompoc Record and asserts that these articles demonstrate that the 
proposed expansion area is located in a region called the ``Buellton 
Flats'' or ``Buell Flat(s).'' According to the comment, these two terms 
are used to describe all of the lands historically owned by the Buell 
family, including ``the entire Rancho de San Carlos de Jonata, [and] 
the Canada [sic] de los Palos Blancos . . . .'' The comment concludes 
that, by this description, the proposed expansion area is located in an 
area that was historically known as ``Buell Flat'' because the proposed 
expansion area is within the San Carlos de Jonata land grant, and the 
Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos Blancos forms the eastern edge of the 
proposed expansion area.
    Another comment (comment 116) also challenges the expansion 
petitioner's interpretation of the 1906 decision card issued by the 
U.S. Board on Geographic Names. Although the decision card states that 
the Santa Rita Hills extend to the ``mouth of the Ca[ntilde]ada de los 
Palos Blancos,'' the commenter asserts that the term ``mouth'' does not 
refer to the mouth of the canyon, which is located just north of State 
Highway 246. Instead, the commenter believes that ``mouth'' refers to 
the point where the seasonal creek that runs through the canyon enters 
the Santa Ynez River. The creek curves to the west as it exits the 
canyon and joins with the river south of State Highway 246, outside 
both the proposed expansion area and the current AVA boundary. The 
commenter also states that the geological feature known as the Santa 
Rita Syncline ``separates the Santa Rita Hills from the Purisima 
Hills'' and follows the path of State Highway 246. The commenter states 
that, by his interpretation of the 1906 decision card, the Santa Rita 
Hills do not extend as far east as the actual canyon known as the 
Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos Blancos, which forms the eastern boundary of 
the proposed expansion area, nor do the hills extend north of the 
geological feature known as the Santa Rita Syncline.
    The commenter also concludes that, using his definition of the 
boundaries of the actual Santa Rita Hills, none of the three vineyards 
located either entirely or partially within the expansion area are 
planted on the geological feature known as the Santa Rita Hills. The 
commenter asserts that the two vineyards planted north of State Highway 
246 are planted on a ridge that ``buttresses the Purisima Hills,'' and 
the third vineyard, which is located south of both State Highway 246 
and the junction of the creek and the Santa Ynez River, is planted in 
the Santa Rosa Hills. Because none of the three vineyards within the 
proposed expansion area are planted on the geological feature known as 
the Santa Rita Hills, the commenter claims that the expansion petition 
does not meet the name evidence requirements to say that the proposed 
expansion area is known as the ``Sta. Rita Hills.''
    Finally, comment 97 includes a report by an expert in land titles 
which examines the historical land records of a man named Charles 
Lewis. The report shows that in 1910, Mr. Lewis obtained a parcel of 
land consisting of 550.89 acres cut from the Santa Rosa land grant. The 
parcel includes the present-day Pence Ranch vineyard, which is located 
within the proposed expansion area. Mr. Lewis' ranch house still stands 
on the Pence Ranch property and is shown on the USGS Solvang quadrangle 
map and on a 1919 map (included in comment 97) just north of present-
day State Highway 246. The title expert's report then references a 
September 1913 article from the Lompoc Record that describes Mr. Lewis 
travelling from ``his Buell Flat ranch'' to Lompoc. The report 
concludes that because Mr. Lewis' property included a large portion of 
the proposed expansion area, the term ``Buell Flat'' applies to the 
proposed expansion area.
Supporting Comments
    One of the 19 comments submitted in support of the proposed AVA 
expansion addresses the question of name evidence (comment 115). The 
commenter states that although many of the opposing comments claim the 
proposed expansion area is known as either ``Buell Flats'' or 
``Buellton Flats,'' the only reference to those terms of which she is 
aware is a reference to an area east of Buellton, several miles beyond 
the proposed expansion area. TTB notes that the commenter did not 
provide any evidence to support her claim of the location of a region 
known as ``Buell Flats'' or ``Buellton Flats.''
    In response to the comments challenging the name evidence in the 
expansion petition, the petitioner, Patrick Shabram, submitted two 
additional comments (comments 102 and 113). In comment 102, Mr. Shabram 
addresses the claims in comment 76 that the proposed expansion area 
extends into an area called the ``Buell Flat.'' Mr. Shabram provided 
anecdotal evidence that the proposed expansion area is not known as 
``Buell Flat'' in the form of a statement by the current owner of Buell 
Ranch, who indicated the ``Buell Flat'' was never considered to extend 
west of Buellton. Instead, the ranch owner described ``Buell Flat'' as 
being ``on either side of [State Highway] 246 from Ballard Canyon to 
about Neilson Supply,'' which is a building supply store in Solvang.
    Finally, in comment 113, Mr. Shabram provides additional evidence 
to demonstrate that the proposed expansion area is associated with the 
name ``Sta. Rita Hills.'' A 2013 article from the Santa Barbara 
Independent newspaper describes a wine tasting festival in Solvang, 
which included wine from Pence Ranch, one of the vineyards within the 
proposed expansion area. The article describes the vineyard as being 
located ``on the eastern edge of the Sta. Rita Hills [sic].'' An 
advertisement for the 2013 PinotFest in Pasadena features ``the Best of 
Pinot Noir from Sta. Rita Hills'' and lists Pence Ranch as one of the 
featured wineries. Finally, a brochure from Dragonette Cellars 
describing their 2011 Sta. Rita Hills-labeled Pinot Noir notes that 12 
percent of the grapes used to make the wine are from Pence Ranch, and 
that all the grapes used in the wine were selected for their ``ability 
to add unique but complementary characteristics to the final blend.'' 
According to Mr. Shabram, the article and the festival advertisement 
both demonstrate that the Pence Ranch is currently associated with the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA, even though it is not within the AVA. Furthermore, 
Mr. Shabram believes the brochure from Dragonette Cellars shows that 
the quality and characteristics of the Pinot Noir grapes grown within 
the proposed expansion area are similar enough to Pinot Noir grapes 
grown within the AVA that they may be blended with AVA-grown fruit.
TTB Analysis
    TTB has carefully reviewed all of the comments that address the 
issue of name evidence. TTB has also reviewed the regulatory history of 
the Sta. Rita Hills AVA to ensure that its determination regarding the 
name evidence for the proposed expansion area is consistent with the 
previous rulemaking, namely T.D. ATF-454.
    TTB notes that the majority of the opposing comments solely 
provided anecdotal evidence to support their claims that the proposed 
expansion area is located in a region known as the

[[Page 56496]]

``Buellton Flats,'' ``Buell Flat,'' or ``Buell Flats.'' Although the 
expansion petitioner includes a statement from the current owner of 
Buell Ranch in the expansion petition and his two additional comments, 
stating that the ranch owner considers the ``Buell Flat'' to be located 
between the cities of Buellton and Solvang, this is also anecdotal 
evidence. Section 9.12(a)(1)(ii) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 
9.12(a)(1)(ii)) states that ``anecdotal information by itself is not 
sufficient'' to demonstrate name usage, and that evidence from sources 
independent of the petitioner, such as newspaper or magazine articles, 
books, or maps, must also be provided. Therefore, TTB cannot determine 
the exact location of a region historically or currently known as the 
``Buellton Flats,'' or ``Buell Flat(s),'' or if the region contains the 
proposed expansion area, based solely on the anecdotal evidence 
provided by the commenters.
    With regard to the articles referencing ``Buell Flat(s)'' which 
were included in comment 97, TTB notes that the articles all date to 
1920 or earlier. Section 9.12(a)(1) requires evidence to show that the 
name is ``currently and directly'' associated with the area of the AVA. 
Nevertheless, TTB has examined the historical articles and has 
determined that their descriptions of the location of ``Buell Flat(s)'' 
are too vague or broad to state conclusively that the proposed 
expansion area was located within the area known by that name. For 
these reasons, TTB has determined that the historical articles do not 
conclusively demonstrate that the proposed expansion area is in an area 
currently or historically known as ``Buell Flat(s).''
    TTB has also carefully considered the land title expert's analysis 
of the property records of Charles Lewis, which was included in comment 
97. TTB agrees with the title expert's findings that the present-day 
Pence Ranch was once owned by Mr. Lewis, who was referred to in the 
1913 newspaper article as living on a ``Buell Flat ranch.'' However, 
the 1910 survey map included with the title expert's analysis does not 
include any reference to ``Buell Flat'' and refers to various portions 
of the parcel of land owned by Mr. Lewis as ``Hill Land,'' ``Palos 
Blancos Flat,'' and ``Bottom Land.'' Therefore, TTB believes that the 
region of the proposed expansion area has been referred to by various 
names over time and was not known exclusively as ``Buell Flat,'' even 
at the time the land was owned by Mr. Lewis. Finally, TTB notes that 
the analysis does not provide evidence that the proposed expansion area 
is currently known as ``Buell Flat,'' as required by Sec.  9.12(a)(1) 
of the TTB regulations.
    TTB disagrees with the assertion in comment 97 that the 1906 U.S. 
Board on Geographic Names decision card was revoked the following year 
by the 1907 USGS bulletin. Although the 1907 bulletin does not describe 
the eastern edge of the Santa Rita Hills in the same manner as the 1906 
decision card, the bulletin does not affect the decision card. If the 
description of the Santa Rita Hills in the bulletin had been intended 
to officially replace the description in the 1906 decision card, then 
the Board would have issued a second card noting the new decision. 
However, no such card was provided to TTB during the comment period, so 
TTB does not consider the 1907 bulletin to have officially revoked or 
amended the 1906 decision card. Because TTB finds no evidence that the 
decision card was officially revoked or amended, TTB considers the 
card's definition of the Santa Rita Hills to be current, even though 
the decision was made in 1906.
    TTB also disagrees with the interpretation of the three sets of 
coordinates attributed to the Santa Rita Hills in the USGS Geographic 
Names Information System (GNIS). TTB does not believe that these 
coordinates are intended to demarcate the edges of the Santa Rita 
Hills. Instead, TTB believes these coordinates are intended to help map 
users locate the hills on each of the three USGS quadrangle maps on 
which they appear. On the GNIS Web site, each of the sets of 
coordinates is specifically linked to one of these three USGS 
quadrangle maps. When plotted on its specific map, each set of 
coordinates corresponds to a point within the hills, usually a point 
roughly in the middle of the printed words ``Santa Rita Hills.'' TTB 
agrees that the easternmost set of these coordinates, which is a point 
on the Santa Rosa Hills quadrangle map, corresponds to a point within 
the current AVA boundary that is west of Drum Canyon. However, TTB does 
not agree that this set of coordinates is intended to show the 
easternmost edge of the Santa Rita Hills, because the printed words 
``Santa Rita Hills'' clearly continue east of Drum Canyon and onto the 
landmass that includes both the AVA's current eastern boundary and the 
proposed expansion area.
    TTB also finds no conclusive evidence to support the claim in 
comment 116 that the ``mouth'' mentioned in the 1906 decision card 
refers to the junction of the Santa Ynez River and the intermittent 
creek that runs through the Ca[ntilde]ada de los Palos Blancos. Even if 
TTB was to use this interpretation, a portion of the Santa Rita Hills 
would still be within the proposed expansion area. Under the definition 
of ``mouth'' offered in comment 116, the landmass that includes both 
the current eastern boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and the 
proposed expansion area would contain portions of two separate ranges: 
the portion of the landmass that is north of the Santa Rita Syncline 
(which follows the path of State Highway 246) would be in the Purisima 
Hills, and the portion south of the syncline would be in the Santa Rita 
Hills. TTB notes that the portion of the landmass that is south of the 
syncline extends into the proposed expansion area. Therefore, even if 
TTB were to use the definition of the ``mouth'' of the canyon used in 
comment 116, a portion of the Santa Rita Hills would still be within 
the proposed expansion area.
    Additionally, comment 116 places the Santa Rita Syncline within the 
proposed expansion area, following the path of State Highway 246. TTB 
notes that the Santa Rita Syncline also runs through the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA and was used in the original AVA petition as evidence to 
support the name ``Santa Rita Hills'' (later ``Sta. Rita Hills''). 
Therefore, the existence of the syncline within the proposed expansion 
area further supports the expansion petition's claim that the proposed 
expansion area is associated with the AVA name.
    TTB also disagrees with the assertion in comment 116 that all three 
vineyards within the proposed expansion area must be planted on the 
actual Santa Rita Hills in order for the proposed expansion area to 
qualify to use the name. Section 9.12(a)(1) of the TTB regulations only 
requires that the name be ``currently and directly associated with an 
area in which viticulture exists.'' TTB does not require vineyards to 
be planted on the geographical feature that gives its name to the 
region. For example, no vineyards are planted in any of the creeks and 
rivers that give their names to numerous AVAs. Furthermore, TTB notes 
that many of the vineyards already within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA are 
not planted on the geographical feature known as the Santa Rita Hills 
and are, instead, planted in the Santa Rita Valley, along the 
floodplains along the Santa Ynez River, or on the foothills of the 
Purisima and Santa Rosa Hills.
    TTB has determined that evidence provided by Mr. Shabram in comment 
113 provides additional support for the claim that the proposed 
expansion area is known as the ``Sta. Rita Hills.'' TTB believes that 
the article from the Santa Barbara Independent that describes Pence 
Ranch as being located on the

[[Page 56497]]

``edge of the Sta. Rita Hills'' demonstrates that wine critics 
associate the vineyards and wineries within the proposed expansion area 
more with the Sta. Rita Hills AVA than with the larger, surrounding 
Santa Ynez Valley AVA. The advertisement for the Pasadena PinotFest 
includes Pence Ranch in its list of Sta. Rita Hills AVA wineries, even 
though Pence Ranch is not located within the AVA's boundaries and its 
wines are not labeled with the appellation. Pence Ranch's inclusion in 
the festival strongly suggests wine community members and consumers 
associate the proposed expansion area with the AVA.
    However, TTB does not believe that the brochure from Dragonette 
Cellars provides additional name evidence, even though grapes from 
Pence Ranch are specifically included in the Sta. Rita Hills-labeled 
wine, because TTB regulations allow up to 15 percent of the grapes from 
an AVA-labeled wine to come from outside the AVA. The brochure does not 
claim that 100 percent of the grapes in the wine are from within the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA, and only 12 percent of the grapes in the wine are 
specifically attributed to Pence Ranch.
    Finally, TTB notes that the presence within the proposed expansion 
area of geographical features with names other than ``Santa Rita 
Hills,'' such as the Purisima Hills or the Buellton/Buell Flat(s), does 
not preclude the proposed expansion area from also being known as the 
``Sta. Rita Hills.'' TTB notes that the Sta. Rita Hills AVA currently 
includes several geographical features known by other names, including 
the Santa Rita Valley, the Santa Ynez River, Drum Canyon, and the 
foothills of both the Purisima Hills and the Santa Rosa Hills.
    In conclusion, TTB has determined that the evidence included in the 
opposing comments does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed 
expansion area does not contain a portion of the geographical feature 
known as the Santa Rita Hills. Additionally, TTB has determined that 
the evidence included in any of the opposing comments does not 
conclusively show that the region of the proposed expansion area is not 
known at the ``Sta. Rita Hills'' or is currently referred to solely as 
the ``Buellton Flats'' or ``Buell Flat(s).'' Therefore, taking into 
account the name evidence described in both the original AVA petition 
and T.D. ATF-454, TTB concludes that the name evidence provided in the 
expansion petition and supplemented by the evidence provided in comment 
113 is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed expansion area is 
known by the name ``Sta. Rita Hills.''

Topography and Native Vegetation

Opposing Comments
    TTB received 23 comments that argue that the topography of the 
proposed expansion area is markedly different from the established Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA. Several of the comments state that the current eastern 
boundary of the AVA was placed at the point where the hills change 
orientation from east-west (within the AVA) to north-south (within the 
proposed expansion area). For example, comment 97 includes a letter 
stating that the proposed expansion area was excluded from the AVA 
because ``it deviates from the orientation of the existing AVA into the 
unique Santa Rita Hills and its surrounding valleys.'' The letter 
asserts that the proposed expansion area is oriented towards the city 
of Buellton and is therefore ``fundamentally and uniquely different'' 
from the AVA. Other comments state that the proposed expansion area 
contains significant expanses of flat land that are different from the 
terrain within the AVA. For instance, comment 45 states that the AVA 
contains ``tight valleys,'' whereas the proposed expansion area is in 
the ``vast open plain'' beyond the eastern AVA boundary. Additionally, 
comment 89 claims that the proposed expansion area ``is actually in the 
flat lands east of the Santa Rita Hills.''
    Two opposing comments include non-anecdotal evidence (comments 76 
and 111) to support the claims that the topography of the proposed 
expansion area differs from that of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Comment 76 
includes a link to a video created by the SRHWA that compares the 
topography of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA to that of the proposed expansion 
area and the region farther east. The video describes the AVA as a 
``transverse valley'' marked by parallel hills that run east-west, 
while the region east of the AVA has hills that are aligned north-
south. The video states that the current eastern boundary of the AVA 
follows a high ridgeline ``over 1,000 feet high'' that is ``close to 
800 feet above the Buell Flats valley floor'' and marks the point where 
the orientation of the hills changes. The video also asserts that, ``It 
is important to note that the watershed east of the ridgeline [outside 
of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA] drains into the Buell Flats.'' Comment 111 
includes a wide-angle aerial photograph looking west into the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA. The current Sta. Rita Hills eastern boundary and a portion 
of the proposed expansion area are marked on the photo. The commenter 
asserts that one can tell from the photo that the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
and the proposed expansion area are ``two different landmasses, two 
different drainages, and exposures.''
    Three comments also oppose the proposed expansion based on the 
native vegetation of the proposed expansion area. Comment 103 describes 
the proposed expansion area as ``windswept grasslands,'' whereas the 
Sta. Rita Hills is covered with ``majestic oaks.'' Comment 97 and 
comment 111 both include copies of a report from an environmental 
services company. The report is described as a ``peer review'' of the 
expansion petition and focuses on the petition's description of the 
climate and native vegetation of the proposed expansion area. The 
report states that the expansion petition significantly undercounted 
the number of valley oaks in the region between U.S. Highway 101 and 
the eastern boundary of the AVA, including those valley oaks located 
within the proposed expansion area. The environmental services company 
conducted its own survey of oak trees in the eastern portion of the 
AVA, between Drum Canyon/Mail Road and the eastern boundary. The report 
claims that at three locations within in the survey area, valley oaks 
comprised less than one percent of the oaks present at each location. 
However, at the fourth location, which was ``at or near the AVA's 
eastern boundary,'' valley oaks comprised approximately 50 percent of 
the oaks present, suggesting ``an abrupt change'' at the ridgeline that 
forms the boundary between the AVA and the proposed expansion area ``to 
a climate that is significantly more favorable to valley oak'' than to 
live oak.
Supporting Comments
    TTB received three comments in support of the proposed expansion 
area that specifically mentioned its topography. According to the three 
comments, the proposed expansion area and the AVA both contain similar 
topography. Comment 23 asserts that ``the mesa part of the vineyard 
[within the proposed expansion area] is not dissimilar to other 
vineyards on flat ground'' within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Comment 33 
argues that the proposed expansion area is not on a separate landmass 
from the AVA because it is on the same hillside as the current AVA's 
eastern boundary. Finally, comment 109 claims that the proposed 
expansion area is not flat and low-lying, as many opposing comments 
claim, but is ``of a higher elevation and with steeper slopes than much 
of the existing AVA terrain.''
    The expansion petitioner, Mr. Shabram, submitted three comments

[[Page 56498]]

further describing the topography of the proposed expansion area 
(comments 17, 29, and 102). Comment 17, submitted in response to 
several opposing comments that claim the proposed expansion would 
extend the AVA significantly to the east and beyond the influence of 
the marine air, includes a map showing the location of the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA and the proposed expansion area, as well as the distance to 
the ocean from both regions. Mr. Shabram asserts that the map shows the 
proposed expansion area would not extend the AVA substantially farther 
from the ocean. Comment 29, submitted in response to comments claiming 
that the proposed expansion area is flatter than the AVA, contains a 
map showing the slope angles of both the proposed expansion area and 
the AVA, which Mr. Shabram asserts are similar.
    In comment 102, Mr. Shabram responds to the video included in 
comment 76. Mr. Shabram first notes that although the video states that 
the Sta. Rita Hills AVA is a transverse valley, the satellite images in 
the video show that the transverse valley is not limited to the AVA but 
in fact extends from the Pacific Ocean through the AVA and the proposed 
expansion area and ends at a point ``well east'' of the city of 
Buellton. Mr. Shabram then disputes the video's claim that the AVA's 
eastern boundary is formed by a ridgeline with elevations over 1,000 
feet. Mr. Shabram asserts that the boundary is not a true ridgeline but 
``the eastern edge of the Santa Rita Valley or a narrowing of the gap 
between the Purisma [sic] Hills and the Santa Rita/Santa Rosa Hills.'' 
Mr. Shabram further states that the highest point along the eastern AVA 
boundary is an ``unnamed hill of 1,063 feet upon which John Sebastiano 
Vineyards sit. Some of the vineyards on this hill are in the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA, some are outside.'' Although this hill's elevation is over 
1,000 feet, Mr. Shabram observes that the highest point along State 
Highway 246 is only 557 feet, as shown on the USGS maps. The highway 
connects the AVA and the proposed expansion area and follows a natural 
wind gap in the mountains. Because the diurnal inversion layers in 
Santa Barbara County typically reach as high as 900 feet, Mr. Shabram 
concludes that this wind gap, which is approximately 160 feet above the 
valley floor adjacent to the west, is not so high as to block marine 
air and fog from entering the proposed expansion area. Finally, Mr. 
Shabram states that although the video claims that it is important that 
the region east of the current AVA, including the proposed expansion 
area, drains into the ``Buell Flats,'' both the AVA and the proposed 
expansion area are part of the larger Santa Ynez River watershed.
TTB Analysis
    TTB has carefully reviewed all of the comments that address the 
issue of topography and native vegetation. TTB has also reviewed the 
regulatory history of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA to ensure that its 
determination regarding the topographical and native vegetation 
evidence for the proposed expansion area is consistent with the 
previous rulemaking.
    T.D. ATF-454 describes the topography of the 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'' and is 
``isolated geographically'' by the Santa Rosa Hills to the south and 
the Purisima Hills to the north. These two east-west oriented ranges 
``frame the interior of the Santa Rita Hills [sic] AVA.'' TTB notes 
that the importance of the AVA's orientation was that it allows marine-
influenced air to enter the AVA and moderate the climate.
    TTB has determined that the opposing comments do not provide 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the topography of the proposed 
expansion area is different from that of the existing Sta. Rita Hills 
AVA. The topographical maps provided with the expansion petition, as 
well as the slope angle map submitted by Mr. Shabram in comment 17, 
demonstrate that the proposed expansion area is a region of hillsides 
similar to those found in the Sta. Rita Hills AVA.
    TTB disagrees that the aerial photograph included in comment 111 
shows that the terrain of the proposed expansion area is different. The 
AVA's current eastern boundary is marked on the photo, and State 
Highway 246 is visible, which makes it possible to identify the 
proposed expansion area. TTB notes that the hilly terrain of the 
proposed expansion area, located to the right of the highway in the 
photo, resembles the hillsides within the AVA. The flat floodplain of 
the Santa Ynez River, which is prominent in the foreground of the 
photo, is not within the proposed expansion area. Furthermore, nothing 
in T.D. ATF-454 excludes valleys, floodplains, or other flat lands from 
the AVA. In fact, TTB notes that T.D. ATF-454 states that 
``viticultural viability'' within the AVA was determined by, among 
other factors, the presence of both ``hillside and alluvial basin 
plantings.''
    With regard to the comments that claim the proposed expansion area 
should be excluded from the Sta. Rita Hills AVA because it is not part 
of the east-west maritime throat that defines the AVA, TTB believes 
that the proposed expansion area is part of the east-west oriented 
ranges described in the original petition as ``framing'' the AVA. The 
proposed expansion area sits on the eastern side of the same landmass 
that forms the AVA's current eastern boundary, meaning that the western 
slopes of this landmass are already within the AVA. TTB does not 
believe that any of the comments contain sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that the eastern slopes of this landmass are 
topographically different from the western slopes, which are within the 
AVA.
    TTB does agree that the eastern slopes of the landmass do face away 
from the interior of the AVA and the Santa Rita Hills. However, TTB 
notes that T.D. ATF-454 does not exclude all slopes that face away from 
the interior of the AVA. Currently, there are slopes along the canyons 
and creek valleys within the AVA that face east or west and not north 
or south into the interior of the AVA. Therefore, TTB does not believe 
that slope orientation should prevent the proposed expansion area from 
being included in the Sta. Rita Hills AVA.
    After reviewing the video included in comment 76, TTB does not 
believe that the video demonstrates any significant topographical 
difference between the proposed expansion area and the Sta. Rita Hills 
AVA. TTB does agree that the topography of the vineyards near Buellton 
and Solvang, which are shown in the video, appears different from the 
AVA. However, none of these vineyards are within the proposed expansion 
area. TTB also notes that, while the region east of the current AVA 
boundary may drain away from the Santa Rita Hills, all the creeks 
within the AVA and the proposed expansion area eventually drain into 
the Santa Ynez River. Although T.D. ATF-454 mentions that the AVA has a 
different drainage than the Lompoc basin, to the west, there is no 
discussion of any differences in drainage between the AVA and the 
region to the east, where the proposed expansion area is located. In 
fact, T.D. ATF-454 states that the ``Santa Rita Upland Basin,'' located 
within the AVA, is in ``hydrologic continuity'' with the ``Buellton 
Upland Basin.'' TTB notes that a map included in the original Sta. Rita 
Hills petition as Exhibit 3 shows that the ``Buellton Upland Basin'' 
covers an area that includes both the eastern portion of the AVA and 
the proposed expansion area. Therefore, TTB does not

[[Page 56499]]

consider hydrologic features to distinguish the AVA from the region to 
the east, including the proposed expansion area.
    With regard to the comments on the native vegetation within the 
proposed expansion area, TTB believes that the report from the 
environmental services company contained in comments 97 and 111 
suggests the description of the native vegetation in the expansion 
petition may be inaccurate. The report asserts that valley oaks are 
more common within the proposed expansion area than the expansion 
petition claims. However, both the report and the expansion area concur 
that oak trees, in general, do grow in both the AVA and the proposed 
expansion area. TTB also notes that T.D. ATF-454 states that the AVA is 
``oak studded'' but does not distinguish between valley oaks and 
coastal live oaks. Therefore, although TTB agrees that the expansion 
petition's estimate of the number of valley oaks versus live oaks found 
within the proposed expansion area may not be accurate, the presence or 
absence of a specific species of oak is not a distinguishing feature of 
the AVA. TTB has also determined that the expansion petition contains 
enough other evidence to demonstrate the similarity between the 
proposed expansion area and the AVA to allow the expansion petition's 
native vegetation evidence to be excluded from consideration.

Climate

Opposing Comments
    TTB received 45 comments opposing the proposed expansion based on 
climate. The majority of these opposing comments state that the 
proposed expansion area is warmer than the AVA because the ridgeline 
that forms the current eastern boundary of the AVA prevents most, if 
not all, of the cool marine air and fog from travelling farther east. 
For example, many of the opposing comments claim that as one travels 
east along State Highway 246, the temperature becomes noticeably warmer 
after crossing the eastern boundary of the AVA. Some of the comments 
claim that it is evident that the proposed expansion area has a warmer 
climate than the AVA because different vegetables and berries are grown 
in the proposed expansion area (comment 53) or because bud break and 
harvest occur earlier in the proposed expansion area (comments 81, 87, 
and 105). Another comment, comment 116 claims, ``An average daily high 
temperature of less than 80 degrees and an abundance of sunshine is the 
factor that distinguishes the Sta. Rita Hills AVA from all others,'' 
and that the proposed expansion area's daily highs are warmer than 80 
degrees. Other comments question the petitioner's data collection 
methods, claiming that the petitioner ``cherry-picked'' temperature 
data to make it appear as though the proposed expansion area's climate 
is similar to the AVA (comment 44), and that the petitioner should have 
used an eastern comparison point closer to the proposed expansion area 
than Ballard Canyon (comments 86 and 97).
    Three of these opposing comments provide non-anecdotal evidence 
(comments 76, 97, and 111). For example, the video in comment 76 
includes footage of fog covering the AVA, while the vineyards in the 
proposed expansion area are fog-free. The video states that the absence 
of fog over the proposed expansion area demonstrates that the ridgeline 
forming the AVA's eastern boundary prevents marine-influenced fog and 
air from moving farther east. Comment 97 also refers to this video as 
evidence that marine air does not enter the proposed expansion area.
    Additionally, comment 97 asserts that the climate data in the 
expansion petition ``cannot be considered adequate or credible evidence 
to establish that the original petitioners were incorrect or incomplete 
in their analysis of the distinctive climate of the AVA . . . .'' The 
comment asserts that it is inappropriate for the expansion petition to 
use a weather station in the Ballard Canyon AVA to demonstrate that the 
proposed expansion area's climate is more similar to the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA than the region east of the proposed expansion area because 
Ballard Canyon is ``over 6 miles away and separated by a mountain range 
. . . .'' Furthermore, the comment asserts that the expansion petition 
should not have used comparison data from a region that is already 
within an established AVA because, ``[w]hen TTB established the Ballard 
Canyon AVA, the agency recognized the area as viticultural [sic] 
distinct from the surrounding areas. The petitioners have simply stated 
the obvious truth of what TTB determined-the areas outside Ballard 
Canyon AVA are not like Ballard Canyon AVA.''
    Comment 97 also states that the Web site from Pence Ranch, which is 
a vineyard within the proposed expansion area, provides additional 
evidence that the climate of the proposed expansion area is different 
from that of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The Pence Ranch Web site notes 
that the vineyard is contemplating, in the words of the commenter, 
``graft[ing] an acre of Pinot Noir vines to Gamay (not one of the 
Burgundian varietals that the AVA is known to grow so successfully) . . 
. .'' The Web site also includes a photo showing a neighboring vineyard 
within the AVA ``nestled in fog,'' while the Pence Ranch vineyard is 
sunny. The letter suggests that the absence of fog in the photo of the 
Pence Ranch vineyard along with the vineyard owner's plans to graft 
Pinot Noir vines onto a varietal not currently grown in the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA demonstrate that the proposed expansion area has a different 
climate.
    Comment 97 also includes a report from Dr. Deborah Elliott-Fisk, 
Professor Emeritus of Geography, Ecology, and Wildlife, Fish and 
Conservation Biology at the University of California, Davis. In her 
report, Dr. Fisk critiques the climate data provided in the expansion 
petition. Dr. Fisk commissioned Mark Battany, the University of 
California Cooperative Extension Viticulture Farm Advisor for Santa 
Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, to provide an analysis of data 
from weather stations placed in vineyards throughout Santa Barbara 
County. These weather stations include stations that Dr. Fisk asserts 
correspond to stations used in the expansion petition, as well as 
several stations she describes as being ``just outside'' of the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA. Dr. Fisk states that Mr. Battany's climate analysis 
used two different methods to calculate growing degree days (GDDs), and 
the results were converted into isotherm maps that show the climate 
patterns in the county. According to Dr. Fisk, the results of the 
analysis demonstrate that the proposed expansion area is consistently 
warmer than the AVA, and the isotherm maps show that the transition to 
warmer temperatures occurs at the current eastern boundary of the AVA. 
Dr. Fisk also claims that when comparing Mr. Battany's GDD data to the 
GDD data in the expansion petition, ``none of the numbers match . . . 
.'' As a result, Dr. Fisk concludes that the climate data in the 
expansion petition is inaccurate and that the petitioner's data 
collection methods and analysis methods were faulty.
    Finally, comment 97 and comment 111 both also include the same 
report from the environmental services company that was previously 
discussed in the ``Topography and Native Vegetation'' section of this 
document. The report critiques a map included in the expansion petition 
that illustrates the flow of wind through the AVA and into the proposed 
expansion area. The report asserts that the map provides an inaccurate 
description of the wind patterns, and that the winds move at different 
speeds as they are constricted

[[Page 56500]]

at the bend in the Santa Ynez River near the current eastern boundary. 
The report states that ``given the lack of empirical evidence, these 
conclusions [should] be considered as an untested hypothesis.'' The 
report also critiques the climate data provided in the expansion 
petition, claiming that the data is insufficient because it was 
collected for too short of a time period. Furthermore, the report 
asserts that the expansion petition did not provide any information as 
to the model of the weather stations used to gather the data, how they 
were calibrated, or where they were placed with respect to ``slope, 
aspect, orientation, land-cover, vegetation, and nearby structures.''
    The environmental services company's report provides its own wind 
and temperature models to support the assertion that the proposed 
expansion area has a different climate than the AVA. The report's wind 
models were derived from a ``48-hour hindcast of a sea breeze 
circulation over Santa Barbara County on July 4th, 2009, using the 
Weather Research Forecasting Model (WRF) from the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research.'' The temperature models show day and night cloud 
cover and land surface temperatures for the period between April and 
October from 2003 to 2013. The report states that these models 
demonstrate that the wind patterns shown on the map in the expansion 
petition are inaccurate, and that the ``region of the proposed AVA 
expansion . . . is several degrees warmer, on average,'' than the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA.
Supporting Comments
    Eleven comments supporting the proposed expansion specifically 
mention climate. These comments all essentially state that the proposed 
expansion area's climate is similar to that of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, 
with cooling marine breezes and fog. Two of these comments also claim 
that bud break and harvest within the proposed expansion area occur at 
approximately the same time as in the AVA (comments 23 and 110). TTB 
notes that none of these supporting comments provide non-anecdotal 
evidence to support their claims.
    In response to comments questioning the climate data in the 
expansion petition, Mr. Shabram submitted two comments (comments 102 
and 113). In comment 102, Mr. Shabram responds to the video included in 
comment 76. First, Mr. Shabram states that, contrary to the claim made 
in the video, marine air flows inland much farther than the current 
eastern boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and extends at least to the 
Ballard Canyon AVA. Mr. Shabram states that the ridgeline that forms 
the current eastern boundary of the AVA is not too high to prevent the 
marine air and fog from entering, particularly since the rise along 
State Highway 246 has an elevation of 557 feet, which is only 
approximately 160 feet above the floor of the adjacent valley within 
the AVA. Mr. Shabram also states that the narrowing of the mountains at 
the point of this rise actually increases the speed of the wind into 
the proposed expansion area, instead of slowing or stopping it. 
Finally, Mr. Shabram states that the footage showing fog over the AVA 
but not over the proposed expansion area is inconclusive, as the video 
provides no information about the time of day when the footage was 
shot, and one ``momentary shot is by no means telling of an entire 
growing season.'' Furthermore, Mr. Shabram speculates that the fog 
shown in the video is not marine fog but radiation fog, which is the 
result of cool air draining into the Santa Ynez River valley.
    In comment 113, Mr. Shabram responds to critiques of the climate 
data he provided in the expansion petition. Mr. Shabram again asserts 
that the current eastern boundary of the AVA does not block marine air 
from travelling farther east but instead acts as a funnel to increase 
the speed of marine breezes, propelling them into the proposed 
expansion area. As evidence, Mr. Shabram provides wind speed data from 
Pence Ranch vineyards, within the proposed expansion area, and compares 
the data to wind speed data collected in the city of Lompoc, which is 
approximately two miles west of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and receives 
unobstructed winds from the Pacific Ocean. The data shows that the 
maximum wind speeds in the proposed expansion area are significantly 
higher than those in Lompoc, even though the proposed expansion area is 
farther from the ocean and on the eastern side of the ridgeline. As 
additional evidence that fog can enter the proposed expansion area, Mr. 
Shabram included a link to a recent video of workers harvesting grapes 
at Pence Ranch, which shows fog shrouding the vineyard.
    Mr. Shabram then addresses the report from Dr. Fisk in comment 97 
by providing more information on the models of weather stations he used 
to collect his climate data, along with photographs of the stations. He 
states that he used the Ballard Canyon AVA as a comparison point 
because he was unable to find a weather station closer to the proposed 
expansion area that had complete data sets. Mr. Shabram notes that 
while several of the stations used in Dr. Fisk's report are near the 
stations used in the expansion petition, only one of the weather 
stations is actually the same station used in the expansion petition: 
Station 26, located in the southeastern corner of the AVA, is the same 
station referred to as Station E in the expansion petition. None of the 
stations used in Dr. Fisk's report are located within the proposed 
expansion area. Mr. Shabram also states that the weather stations that 
Dr. Fisk described as being ``just outside'' the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
are in fact several miles away, with the closest (Station 23) located 
along U.S. Highway 101 in Buellton and the next closest station 
appearing to be within the Ballard Canyon AVA.
    Finally, Mr. Shabram clarified the method he used to calculate 
GDDs, which is different from the two methods used in Dr. Fisk's 
report. One of the methods in the report used an average of only the 
daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures, while the second method 
used a daily average temperature that was calculated using temperatures 
gathered every 15 minutes. Both of these methods set the minimum for 
the temperatures used to calculate the daily average at zero, and the 
temperatures were measured in degrees Celsius. By contrast, Mr. 
Shabram's GDD calculation method used the average of the daily maximum 
high and daily minimum low temperatures measured in degrees Fahrenheit. 
Furthermore, if the daily minimum low temperature was below 50 degrees 
Fahrenheit, the minimum temperature needed for grapevine growth and 
fruit development, Mr. Shabram's method substituted 50 degrees for the 
minimum temperature. Mr. Shabram states that the differences in the 
methods used to calculate GDDs would naturally cause differences in the 
results, and both of the methods used in Dr. Fisk's report would always 
produce smaller GDD totals than Mr. Shabram's method. Furthermore, 
using degrees Celsius would also naturally result in smaller GDD totals 
than using degrees Fahrenheit, regardless of the GDD calculation method 
used.
TTB Analysis
    TTB has carefully reviewed all of the comments that address the 
issue of climate. TTB has also reviewed the regulatory history of the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA to ensure that its determination regarding the 
climatic evidence for the proposed expansion area is consistent with 
the previous rulemaking.
    TTB notes that T.D. ATF-454 describes the climate of the AVA as 
being moderated by cooling breezes and

[[Page 56501]]

fog from the Pacific Ocean. T.D. ATF-454 also states that the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA is cooler than the region ``east of Highway 101'' and is cool 
enough to grow cool-climate grapes, specifically Pinot Noir and 
Chardonnay, which are not typically grown farther east. The original 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA petition included climate data from Lompoc, 
adjacent to the western boundary of the AVA, and Lake Cachuma, 
approximately 17 miles east of the eastern boundary of the AVA, but 
provided no climate data from within the AVA or the region that is now 
the proposed expansion area.
    TTB has determined that the opposing comments do not provide 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the climate of the proposed 
expansion area is different from that of the existing Sta. Rita Hills 
AVA, as defined in T.D. ATF-454. Although many of the opposing comments 
state that the proposed expansion area is warmer, receives less fog, 
and has an earlier harvest date than the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, the 
majority of these comments provide only anecdotal evidence. Therefore, 
TTB is unable to determine the accuracy of these statements.
    Finally, with regard to the comments stating that different 
vegetable and berry crops are grown in the proposed expansion area, TTB 
notes that AVAs are established based on factors that affect 
viticulture. Different crops have different growing requirements and 
may be more susceptible to slight variations in growing conditions than 
wine grapes. Therefore, TTB does not consider the presence or absence 
of crops other than wine grapes to be a relevant feature of the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA.
    With regard to the video submitted in comment 76, TTB has also 
determined that the video does not provide sufficient evidence to 
contradict the climate evidence provided in the expansion petition. The 
footage of sunny conditions in the proposed expansion area while fog 
covers a neighboring vineyard within the AVA captures only one moment 
of one day and does not conclusively demonstrate that fog never reaches 
the expansion area. TTB notes that both the photograph of fog in the 
Pence Ranch that was included in the expansion petition and the video 
of fog submitted by Mr. Shabram in comment 113 show that fog can reach 
the proposed expansion area at some point during the growing season. 
TTB notes that the presence of marine fog is a distinguishing feature 
of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, but T.D. ATF-454 does not set a minimum 
number of days when fog must be present or a certain time of day by 
which fog must be present. Therefore, TTB believes that the evidence 
provided in the expansion petition is sufficient to demonstrate that 
fog occurs within the proposed expansion area.
    TTB also does not believe that comment 97 contains sufficient 
evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner's methods were seriously 
flawed. The TTB regulations in Sec.  9.12 do not prohibit use of 
comparison data from within an established AVA. The Ballard Canyon AVA 
is east of both the proposed expansion area and the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
and, therefore, may be used to distinguish the proposed expansion area 
from the region to the east. TTB also notes that the Ballard Canyon AVA 
station is closer to both the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and the proposed 
expansion area than the station at Lake Cachuma, which was used as a 
comparison station in T.D. ATF-454. When the Sta. Rita Hills AVA was 
originally proposed, TTB did not receive any negative public comments 
regarding the use of the Lake Cachuma weather station, which is 
significantly east of the proposed AVA. Therefore, TTB believes that 
the expansion petition's use of temperature data from a station in the 
Ballard Canyon AVA is appropriate.
    Additionally, TTB does not believe that the plan by the owner of 
the Pence Ranch to graft Pinot Noir vines to Gamay vines, as described 
in comment 97, is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed expansion 
area has a different climate from the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. T.D. ATF-454 
states that the Sta. Rita Hills AVA boundaries were drawn, in part, to 
include areas cool enough to grow Pinot Noir and Chardonnay, but TTB 
regulations do not require that only certain varietals of grapes can be 
planted or used for grafting within a given AVA. Furthermore, TTB notes 
that all three vineyards located either entirely or partially within 
the proposed expansion area do currently grow both Pinot Noir and 
Chardonnay. Therefore, TTB does not believe that the Pence Ranch 
owner's decision to experiment with additional grape varietals or 
grafting techniques on one acre of his property is evidence that the 
proposed expansion area's climate is different from that of the Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA.
    TTB has also carefully reviewed the report from Dr. Fisk included 
in comment 97 and has determined that the temperature analysis Dr. Fisk 
commissioned from Mr. Battany does not conclusively demonstrate that 
the temperature of the proposed expansion area is warmer than that of 
the AVA. TTB does agree that the data indicates that the southeastern 
corner of the AVA is not always warmer than the rest of the AVA, as the 
expansion petition suggests. The data from 2008 and 2011 shows that, 
for those two years, the southeastern portion of the AVA was actually 
cooler than the northeastern portion, when the ``daily maximum-
minimum'' method of GDD calculation was used. However, given that the 
report used different weather stations and different GGD calculation 
methods from the expansion petition, TTB cannot say that the report's 
findings from these two years conclusively negate any or all of the 
temperature data in the expansion petition.
    TTB also notes that Mr. Battany clearly states in his analysis that 
his isotherm maps ``are intended to be aids for the viewer to observe 
broad regional trends,'' and that they ``should not be used for 
assigning values to non-measured locations . . . .'' TTB notes that the 
proposed expansion area is not identified on the isotherm maps, nor was 
a weather station from within the proposed expansion area used to 
develop the maps. However, based on the satellite photo included in the 
report to show the locations of his weather stations, TTB estimates 
that the proposed expansion area is almost due north of Station 26 and 
slightly east of Station 17, which places both stations within the 
current boundaries of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Based on this 
estimation, TTB believes that the isotherm maps show the proposed 
expansion area to be in the same isotherm as either Station 17 or 
Station 26 in some years, and to be in the same isotherm as both 
stations in other years. Station 23, in Buellton, is the closest 
station to the proposed expansion area and is consistently in a warmer 
isotherm than both the proposed expansion area and the AVA. Therefore, 
TTB does not believe that the isotherm maps conclusively demonstrate 
that the temperature of the proposed expansion area is either greater 
than the range of temperatures found in the AVA or is more similar to 
the temperatures of the region east of the AVA.
    Furthermore, TTB notes that although T.D. ATF-454 states that a 
cool climate conducive for growing Pinot Noir and Chardonnay grapes is 
a distinguishing feature of the AVA, it does not set a maximum or 
minimum GDD total or a specific range of temperatures as a 
distinguishing feature of the AVA. T.D. ATF-454 describes climate data 
from Lompoc and Lake Cachuma and essentially states that the AVA is 
warmer than Lompoc and cooler than Lake Cachuma. The isotherm maps in 
comment 97 consistently show that the

[[Page 56502]]

warmest station is Station 25, which is near Lake Cachuma. None of the 
isotherm maps show Station 25 in an isotherm that extends west of 
Buellton, which means that the proposed expansion area is always cooler 
than the station closest to the comparison location used in T.D. ATF-
454. Therefore, TTB believes the isotherm maps do not provide 
sufficient evidence to show that the proposed expansion area does not 
meet the temperature parameters for the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as set 
forth in T.D. ATF-454.
    TTB has also determined that the differences in Mr. Battany's and 
Mr. Shabram's GDD totals can be explained by their use of different GDD 
calculation methods and different scales for measuring temperature. 
When comparing the 2008-2011 GDD totals for the only station used by 
both Mr. Shabram and Mr. Battany (Station 26/Station E), TTB does agree 
with the statement in comment 97 that the totals appear vastly 
different at first glance. For instance, Mr. Battany reports a GDD 
total of 1,694 for Station 26/Station E for 2008, using the ``daily 
maximum-minimum'' calculation method, while Mr. Shabram reports a GDD 
total of 3,363 using a similar but slightly different calculation 
method. However, when one converts Mr. Battany's GDD total for Station 
26/Station E from degrees Celsius to degrees Fahrenheit by multiplying 
by 1.8, the GDD total becomes 3,049.2, which is much closer to Mr. 
Shabram's total.\3\ TTB believes that the remaining difference of 314 
GDDs may be explained by the fact that Mr. Shabram's calculation method 
does not allow for daily minimum temperatures below 50 degrees, which 
naturally results in higher totals than either of Mr. Battany's 
calculation methods, which use any minimum temperature above 0. 
Therefore, TTB does not agree with Dr. Fisk's assertion that Mr. 
Battany's GDD totals prove that the temperature data included in the 
expansion petition is inaccurate and that Mr. Shabram's methods were 
faulty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Celsius-to-Fahrenheit conversion method from the National 
Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center Web page (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/wesley/cfsr/GDD.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TTB notes that wind speed was not mentioned in T.D. ATF-454 and is 
not considered to be a distinguishing feature of the Sta. Rita Hills 
AVA. Nevertheless, TTB reviewed the report from the environmental 
services company that was included in comments 97 and 111. With regard 
to the report's critique of the wind map provided in the expansion 
petition, TTB notes that the intent of the map was to show the 
direction of airflow through the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and the paths the 
marine air takes to enter the proposed expansion area. The map was not 
intended to show how strongly the wind moves through the AVA or the 
force with which it exits the AVA and enters the proposed expansion 
area. TTB notes that the scale of the wind maps created by the 
environmental services company and included in the report is small and 
difficult to read, and that the AVA and proposed expansion area are 
only vaguely marked. However, TTB notes that the maps do appear to show 
that air is able to enter the proposed expansion area from the west, 
which is not contrary to what the expansion petition claims.
    TTB believes that the temperature maps compiled by the 
environmental services company are also of too small a scale to read 
easily. The AVA and proposed expansion area are vaguely marked on these 
maps, as well. Therefore, TTB cannot agree with the environmental 
services company's claim that their temperature maps show that the 
proposed expansion area is ``several degrees warmer, on average,'' than 
the Sta. Rita Hills AVA.
    With regard to the report's critique of the temperature collection 
methods used in the expansion petition, TTB first notes that Sec.  9.12 
does not set forth a minimum number of years that climate data must be 
collected. Section 9.12(a) only requires that a petition include 
``sufficient information, data, and evidence such that no independent 
verification or research is required by TTB.'' However, petitioners are 
encouraged to submit data from as long a period as possible in order to 
provide the most complete picture of a region's climate. TTB notes that 
the expansion petition originally included only 2 years' worth of 
temperature data from within the proposed expansion area. Later, Mr. 
Shabram provided a third year of data, which came from a different 
weather station within the proposed expansion area because the original 
weather station was no longer in service. TTB was satisfied that the 
new station was in close enough proximity to the location of the 
original station and allowed the data to be used in the petition.
    TTB also notes that Sec.  9.12 does not require petitioners to 
provide detailed information on the model of the weather stations they 
used, how the stations were calibrated, or where the stations were 
placed with respect to ``slope, aspect, orientation, land-cover, 
vegetation, and nearby structures.'' TTB believes it is sufficient for 
a petitioner to provide the years during which the weather data was 
collected and the general locations of the stations. The expansion 
petition states the length of time data was collected at each station 
and provides a general description of where the station was placed 
(i.e., inside the AVA, inside the proposed expansion area, within the 
Ballard Canyon AVA), as well as a map showing the location of each 
weather station. Furthermore, the expansion petition includes the 
latitude and longitude of each weather station, although TTB does not 
require such detailed information. Finally, in response to comments 
questioning his data collection methods, Mr. Shabram submitted comment 
113 to provide more detailed information on the weather station models 
he used, as well as photographs of the several of the stations, neither 
of which was required by TTB. Therefore, TTB believes the expansion 
petitioner has provided more information on the weather stations used 
in the expansion petition than TTB regulations require.
    In summary, TTB has determined that the expansion petition provides 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the climate of the proposed 
expansion area meets the climate parameters for the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
as set forth in T.D. ATF-454: temperatures that are moderated by marine 
air and fog, are cool enough for growing cool-climate grape varietals 
(specifically, Pinot Noir and Chardonnay), and are warmer than 
temperatures in Lompoc and cooler than temperatures in the eastern 
portion of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA (specifically, the region near 
Lake Cachuma). TTB has also determined that none of the opposing 
comments provide sufficient evidence to show conclusively that the 
climate of the proposed expansion area does not meet these parameters. 
Finally, TTB believes that the petitioner has provided a sufficient 
explanation of the methods he used to collect and analyze the climate 
data for the proposed expansion area, and that TTB is able to determine 
that his methods are sound.

Comments Regarding Issues Outside the Scope of Part 9

    Numerous comments include various reasons for opposition to the 
proposed expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA that do not relate to the 
regulatory criteria set forth in Sec.  9.12 for AVA petitions. The 
points made by these comments include the following:
    1. Grapes and wines from the proposed expansion area have different 
characteristics/flavors from grapes and wines from the Sta. Rita Hills 
AVA. Many comments state that consumers have come to expect a certain 
taste or

[[Page 56503]]

style from wines of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. These comments assert that 
the grapes and wines from the proposed expansion area taste so 
different that consumers will be confused if the grapes and wines are 
marketed as coming from the Sta. Rita Hills AVA.
    TTB notes that the purpose of AVAs is to allow vintners to describe 
more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and to help 
consumers identify wines they may purchase. The establishment of an AVA 
is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine or grapes 
produced in that area, including a determination of wine or grape taste 
or quality. Therefore, discussions of wine and grape taste and quality 
are not relevant in determining whether or not to expand the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA.
    2. Approval of the proposed expansion will tarnish the reputation 
of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Numerous commenters claim that including 
the proposed expansion area in the Sta. Rita Hills AVA will cause the 
AVA to lose its defining characteristics. Some commenters state that 
expanding the AVA will cause it to lose its ``purity and 
distinctiveness'' (comment 27), and the expansion would negate the 
``countless hours and resources [spent] educating and indoctrinating 
millions of consumers about the AVA'' (comment 45). Other commenters 
assert that the petitioners' motives for proposing the expansion are 
purely financial and have nothing to do with maintaining or enhancing 
the character of the AVA.
    TTB's regulations in part 9 set forth the requirements for 
petitions proposing the establishment or modification of an AVA. TTB 
has determined that the expansion petition meets the requirements of 
part 9 and demonstrates that the proposed expansion area is within the 
parameters of the distinguishing features set forth in T.D. ATF-454. 
Therefore, TTB does not believe that expanding the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
to include the proposed expansion area would be arbitrary or contrary 
to either the TTB regulations as set forth in part 9 or the parameters 
for the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as set forth in T.D. ATF-454.
    TTB also notes that vineyard owners and vintners within an AVA will 
frequently form an association dedicated to promoting grapes and wines 
of the AVA and the business interests of its members. Therefore, the 
hope of financial benefits is likely not an uncommon motive for 
petitioning to establish or expand an AVA. However, any benefit derived 
from the use of an AVA name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and 
consumer acceptance of wines from that area, and hypothetical financial 
gains or losses that may result from the establishment or expansion of 
an AVA are not considered by TTB in determining the merits of a 
petition.
    3. Expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA will lead to further 
expansions of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as well as other AVAs.
    Several comments argue that approving the proposed expansion will 
lead to more petitions to expand the Sta. Rita Hills AVA and/or other 
established AVAs. The comments generally state that approving the 
proposed expansion will set a precedent for expansion that will make it 
more difficult for TTB to reject future expansions to the Sta. Rita 
Hills AVA because the integrity of the original boundaries will have 
been impacted. As a result, the comments predict that TTB will see a 
large increase expansion petitions submittals, many of which will lack 
merit.
    The modification of AVA boundaries is specifically allowed under 
Sec.  9.12 of the TTB regulations, which also sets forth the 
requirements for such petitions. The merits of expansion petitions are 
evaluated based on these requirements, as well as on the regulatory 
history of the AVA, meaning that the expansion petitions must provide 
adequate name evidence and demonstrate that the proposed expansion area 
has the same distinguishing features as described in the Treasury 
Decision that established the AVA. TTB's decision regarding whether to 
approve a proposed expansion is not based on the potential for further 
expansion or other modification of the boundaries of the affected AVA 
or any other established AVA, nor would TTB's decision affect the 
likelihood of the approval of any such proposals in the future.

TTB Determination

    After careful review of the petition and the comments received in 
response to Notice No. 145, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the 
petitioner supports the expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, based on 
the requirements of Sec.  9.12 and the distinguishing features of the 
Sta. Rita Hills AVA as defined in T.D. ATF-454. TTB has also determined 
that the comments received in response to Notice No. 145 did not 
provide sufficient evidence to refute the evidence provided in the 
expansion petition. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, 
section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 
of the TTB regulations, TTB expands the Sta. Rita Hills AVA in Santa 
Barbara County, California, by approximately 2,296 acres, effective 30 
days from the publication date of this document.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the expanded Sta. 
Rita Hills AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this 
final rule.

Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed 
below in the 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 an AVA 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 would have 
to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has 
a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a 
label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
    Bottlers currently using ``Central Coast,'' ``Santa Ynez Valley,'' 
or ``Sta. Rita Hills'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name 
for wines made from grapes grown within the Central Coast, Santa Ynez 
Valley, or Sta. Rita Hills AVAs will not be affected by the expansion 
of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA 
will allow vintners to use ``Sta. Rita Hills,'' ``Santa Ynez Valley,'' 
and ``Central Coast'' as appellations of origin for wines made 
primarily from grapes grown within the expansion area if the wines meet 
the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 56504]]

regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that this final 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 final rule.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

The Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends 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) through (6), redesignating paragraphs (c)(7) through 
(19) as paragraphs (c)(8) through (20), and adding a new paragraph 
(c)(7).
    The additions and revisions 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. 6N, R. 32W.
    (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. 
6N, R. 32W.
    (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. 7N, R. 32W.
    (7) Proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 1.3 miles to 
an unnamed hilltop, elevation 1443 feet. Section 20, T. 7N, R. 32W.
* * * * *

    Signed: July 27, 2016.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.

    Approved: August 3, 2016.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-19998 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-31-P