Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43754-43759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14579]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2020-0007; Notice No. 192]
RIN 1513-AC55

Proposed Modification of the Boundaries of the Santa Lucia
Highlands and Arroyo Seco Viticultural Areas

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
modify the boundaries of the ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' viticultural
area and the adjacent ``Arroyo Seco'' viticultural area in Monterey
County, California. The proposed boundary modifications would remove
approximately 376 acres from the Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural
area and would also remove 148 acres from the Arroyo Seco viticultural
area and place them entirely within the Santa Lucia Highlands
viticultural area. The proposed viticultural areas and the proposed
modification areas are located entirely within the established Monterey
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 September 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this
proposal, and view copies of this document, its supporting materials,
and any comments TTB receives on it within Docket No. TTB-2020-0007 as
posted on Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov), the Federal e-
rulemaking portal. Please see the ``Public Participation'' section of
this document below for full details on how to comment on this proposal
via Regulations.gov, U.S. mail, or hand delivery, and for full details
on how to view or obtain copies of this document, its supporting
materials, and any comments related to this proposal.

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 Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013
(superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB
Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration
and enforcement of these provisions.
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.

[[Page 43755]]

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
the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of
AVAs. Petitions to modify an AVA must include the following:
In the case of an expansion in size of an AVA, evidence
that the proposed expansion area is nationally or locally known by the
name of the AVA into which it would be placed;
In the case of a reduction in size of an AVA, an
explanation of the extent to which the current AVA name does not apply
to the excluded area;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed areas to be realigned, including an explanation of how the
boundary of the existing AVA was incorrectly or incompletely defined or
is no longer accurate due to new evidence or changed circumstances;
In the case of an expansion of an AVA, a narrative
description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture,
such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that
make the proposed expansion area similar to the AVA into which it would
be placed and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the
established AVA;
In the case of a reduction of an AVA, a narrative
description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture,
such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that
differentiate the proposed reduction area from the established AVA and
demonstrate a greater similarity to the features of adjacent areas
outside the established AVA;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA boundary modifications,
with the proposed boundary modifications clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary modifications based on USGS map markings.

Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco Boundary Modification Petition

TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram on behalf of the Santa
Lucia Highlands Wine Artisans, proposing to modify the boundaries of
the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA (27 CFR 9.139) and the adjacent Arroyo
Seco AVA (27 CFR 9.59). The Santa Lucia Highlands AVA and the Arroyo
Seco AVA are both located within Monterey County, California, and are
both located entirely within the established Monterey AVA (27 CFR 9.98)
and the Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75).
The petition contains two separate boundary modification proposals.
The first proposal would remove approximately 376 acres from the
northern part of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. The petition states
that the proposed reduction area is within the floodplain of the
Salinas River and that no vineyards are planted or proposed in this
location. The land removed from the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA would
remain within the Monterey AVA and the Central Coast AVA.
The second proposed modification affects a portion of the shared
Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco AVA boundary. The modification would
remove 148 acres of foothills terrain from the western side of the
Arroyo Seco AVA and place them entirely within the southeastern region
of the Santa Lucia Highlands. One vineyard containing approximately 135
acres of vines would be affected by this boundary realignment, and the
vineyard owner included a letter of support in the petition. The
modification would reduce the size of the Arroyo Seco AVA by less than
1 percent and would not have any impact on the boundaries of the
Monterey AVA or the Central Coast AVA.

Santa Lucia Highlands Reduction

Boundary Evidence

The current northeastern boundary of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA
follows the 100-foot elevation contour southeasterly from its
intersection with Limekiln Creek to its intersection with the Salinas
River. The boundary then proceeds along the west bank of the Salinas
River to its intersection with the 120-foot elevation, where the
boundary then turns southeast to briefly follow the 120-foot elevation
before jumping to the 160-foot elevation contour. The boundary then
follows the 160-foot elevation contour to its intersection with River
Road.
The proposed modification to the northeastern boundary of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA would move the beginning point of the boundary to
the intersection of Limekiln Creek and the 120-foot elevation contour.
The boundary would then follow the 120-foot elevation contour
southeasterly to River Road, where it would then proceed southeasterly
along River Road to an unnamed, unimproved road. From there, the
boundary would proceed southeast in a straight line to the terminus of
the 110-foot elevation contour, then proceed southeast in a straight
line to the Salinas River. The boundary would then follow the Salinas
River southeast to the 120-foot elevation contour. From that point, the
boundary would follow the contour to River Road and then follow the
road to the 160-foot elevation contour. At this point, the proposed
boundary would rejoin the current boundary. The result would be the
elimination of most of the Salinas River floodplains from the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA.

Name Evidence

The Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, established by T.D. ATF-321 on May
15, 1992 (57 FR 20764), is named for the Santa Lucia Mountain Range,
and is located on the eastern edge of these mountains, in the lower
elevations of the Sierra de Salinas. T.D. ATF-321 shows the AVA partly
derives its name from the Santa Lucia Range's elevation, noting trade
and general publications that reference viticulture ``in the Santa
Lucia Highlands overlooking Soledad and Salinas Valley.''
While currently within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, the petition
illustrates the topography in the proposed reduction area is
inconsistent with the elevations of the Santa Lucia Range from which
the ``Santa Lucia AVA'' partly derives its name. The petition provides
evidence showing the proposed reduction area includes sections of the
Salinas River floodplain that have essentially-flat elevations with
little-to-no slope. Therefore, the petition shows the current ``Santa
Lucia

[[Page 43756]]

Highlands AVA'' name is ill-suited for the proposed reduction area.

Comparison of the Proposed Reduction Area to the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA

According to T.D. ATF-321, the distinguishing features of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. The
boundary modification petition states that while the proposed reduction
area's climate is similar to the climate of the rest of the AVA, its
topography and soils are more similar to the topography and soils of
the adjacent region outside of the AVA.
Topography
The boundary modification petition states that the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA is located on a series of alluvial fans and terraces.
Slope angles within the AVA range from 5 to 30 percent, although most
of the terraces have slope angles of 5 to 20 percent. The slopes are
predominately oriented to the east. The petition states that east-
facing slopes expose the vineyards to the cooler morning sun and offer
greater solar exposure, compared to west-facing slopes which are
exposed to warmer afternoon sun and receive less solar exposure.
Furthermore, an eastern exposure allows for fog to burn off early in
the morning. The petition also states that the gentle slope angles
reduce the risk of frost in the vineyards by allowing cool night air to
drain off the vineyards and into the lower, flatter elevations.
According to the petition, the proposed reduction area is on the
Salinas Valley floor within the floodplain of the Salinas River. The
reduction area has little-to-no slope and lacks the clear easterly
orientation of the rest of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. It is also
not on an alluvial fan or terrace. The petition included a map of the
slope angles within the AVA and in the adjacent regions outside the
AVA, as well as photographs of the proposed reduction area and the
surrounding regions. The slope angle map and the photographs show that
the proposed reduction area is essentially flat, similar to the Salinas
River valley floor outside the AVA, while the terrain within the AVA is
noticeably elevated.
Soils
The soils of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA are predominately
Chualar loams, which make up almost 32 percent of the soils within the
AVA. These soils are described as very deep, well-drained soils formed
in alluvial material from mixed rock sources. The petition also states
that Xerorthent soils are also common within the AVA. Xerorthents are
described as a subgroup of Entisols soils common to arid and semi-arid
landscapes. Just over 17 percent of the AVA contains soils of this
subgroup. The soils of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA provide good
drainage for vineyards.
By contrast, the petition states that the soils in the proposed
reduction area are mostly Psamments and Fluvents. These are suborders
of Entisols that are sandy and have little organic material. The
petition included a map of the location of Psamments and Fluvents
within the Santa Lucia Highlands and the region outside the AVA. The
maps shows that these soils are primarily found along the Salinas
River's immediate floodplain and the river's channel, which is outside
the AVA. The soils represent a little over 0.7 percent of the acreage
of the soils of the AVA.

Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco Boundary Realignment

The boundary modification petition also proposed to realign a
portion of the shared Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco AVA boundary.
The proposed realignment would remove approximately 148 acres from the
Arroyo Seco AVA and place them entirely within the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA.

Boundary Evidence

The petition proposes to realign the segment of the shared Santa
Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco boundary located along Paraiso Road. The
current boundary follows Paraiso Road south from its intersection with
Foothill Road to its intersection with Clark Road. The boundary then
proceeds east along Clark Road to an unnamed, light-duty road and then
follows a straight line southeasterly to the southeast corner of
Section 33.
The proposed realigned boundary would follow Paraiso Road south
from its intersection with Foothill Road to its intersection with an
unnamed road north of Clark Road. The boundary would then follow the
unnamed road southeasterly to an intermittent stream. From this point,
the boundary would follow the stream southwesterly to the western
boundary of Section 21 and then proceed in a straight line southwest to
the intersection of Clark Road and to the southern boundary of Section
21. The boundary would then follow Clark Road southwesterly to an
unnamed, light-duty road, where the realigned boundary would rejoin the
current boundary. The realignment would remove an alluvial terrace from
the Arroyo Seco AVA and place it within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.

Name Evidence

The Arroyo Seco AVA, which was established by T.D. ATF-131 on April
15, 1983 (48 FR 16246), derives its name from both the Arroyo Seco land
grant and the Arroyo Seco Creek. The Santa Lucia Highlands, established
by T.D. ATF-321 on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20764), was named for the Santa
Lucia Range. The Santa Lucia Highlands AVA is located on the eastern
edge of this mountain range, in the lower elevations of the Sierra de
Salinas.
The proposed realignment area is currently within the Arroyo Seco
AVA. The boundary modification petition states that the proposed
realignment area is not within the Arroyo Seco land grant, nor does the
Arroyo Seco Creek run through it. The petition notes that the proposed
realignment area ``occupies a highland position consistent with the
Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.'' Therefore, the petition claims that the
current ``Arroyo Seco'' name is less suited for the proposed
realignment area than the ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' name.

Comparison of the Proposed Realignment Area to the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA

Topography and soils are distinguishing features of both the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA. The boundary modification
petition states that the topography and soils of the proposed
realignment area are more similar to those of the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA than to the topography and soils of the Arroyo Seco AVA.
Topography
As stated previously, the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA is comprised of
gently sloping alluvial fans and terraces. The Arroyo Seco AVA, as
described in T.D. ATF-131, is comprised of sloping bench land
surrounding the Arroyo Seco Creek. The boundary modification petition
also notes that the Arroyo Seco AVA contains the watershed of the
Arroyo Seco Creek.
The proposed realignment area is located on an alluvial fan.
According to the boundary modification petition, the proposed
realignment area has an eastern orientation and slope angles above 5
percent. By contrast, the land within the Arroyo Seco AVA that is
immediately adjacent to the proposed realignment area has a more
gradual slope, becoming nearly flat and lacking an eastern orientation.
The petition states that the topographical characteristics of the
proposed

[[Page 43757]]

realignment area are more consistent with those of the Santa Lucia
Highlands than the topography of the Arroyo Seco AVA and would justify
moving this region from the Arroyo Seco AVA into the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA.
Soils
As stated previously, the prominent soil of the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA is the Chualar series. The boundary modification petition
also notes that Placentia sandy loam soils are also present and
comprise 5.3 percent of the soils within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
The petition states that the principal soil series of the Arroyo Seco
AVA are Mocho, Lockwood, Arroyo Seco, Rincon, and Chualar, with Chualar
and Arroyo Seco being the most common soil types. Placentia soils are
present only in very small amounts in limited areas within the Arroyo
Seco AVA.
The petition states that the soil of the proposed realignment area
is comprised of Placentia sandy loam, Chualar, and Arroyo Seco soils.
Although all three soil series are found in both the Arroyo Seco AVA
and the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, Placentia soils are not common in
the Arroyo Seco AVA except within the proposed realignment area. The
petition states that the combination of Placentia, Chualar, and Arroyo
Seco soils is more common within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
Therefore, the petition claims that moving the proposed realignment
area into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA would enhance the boundary
integrity of both AVAs.

TTB Determination

TTB concludes that the petition to modify the boundaries of the
Santa Lucia Highlands AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA merits consideration
and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Boundary Description

See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for
AVA boundary modifications 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. You may also view the proposed
boundary modifications for the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco
AVAs on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer.

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, 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 Sec. 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (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 Sec. 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB approves the proposed removal of land from the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA, wines produced primarily from grapes grown in the
removal area would no longer be eligible to be labeled with ``Santa
Lucia Highlands'' as an appellation of origin. Consequently, wine
bottlers using the name ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' in a brand name,
including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin
of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use
the AVA name as an appellation of origin under the proposed new
boundary of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA if this proposed rule is
adopted as a final rule. TTB does not anticipate that the proposed
removal of land will affect any current labels because the petition
indicates there are no vineyards currently planted or planned within
the proposed reduction area.
If TTB approved the proposed realignment of the shared Santa Lucia
Highlands-Arroyo Seco AVA boundary, the realignment area would be moved
from the Arroyo Seco AVA into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. Wines
produced primarily from grapes grown in the realignment area would no
longer be eligible to be labeled with ``Arroyo Seco'' as an appellation
of origin. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name ``Arroyo Seco''
in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference
as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is
eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin under the
proposed new boundary of the Arroyo Seco AVA if this proposed rule is
adopted as a final rule. However, if the proposed realignment is
approved, wines produced primarily from grapes grown in the realignment
area would be eligible to be labeled with ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' as
an appellation of origin. The petition included a letter of support for
the proposed realignment from the only vineyard owner located within
the proposed realignment area.
The approval of the proposed boundary realignments would not affect
the Monterey AVA or the Central Coast AVA. Bottlers using ``Monterey''
or ``Central Coast'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for
wines made from grapes grown within the proposed removal area or the
proposed realignment area would not be affected by these boundary
modifications. The proposed reduction of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA
boundary would allow vintners to continue using ``Monterey'' and
``Central Coast'' as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes
grown within the proposed reduction area if the wines meet the
eligibility requirements for the appellation. Additionally, the
proposed realignment of the shared Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco
AVA boundary would allow vintners to use ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' as
well as ``Central Coast'' and ``Monterey'' as appellations of origin
for wines made from grapes grown within proposed realignment area if
the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

Transition Period

If the proposal to realign the shared Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo
Seco AVA boundary is approved, a transition rule will apply to labels
for wines produced from grapes grown in the area removed from the
Arroyo Seco AVA and placed into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA (the
``proposed realignment area''). A label containing the words ``Arroyo
Seco'' may be used on wine bottled within two years from the effective
date of the final rule, provided that such label was approved before
the effective date of the final rule and that the wine conforms to the
standards for use of the label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in
effect prior to the final rule. At the end of this two-year transition
period, if the wine is produced primarily from grapes grown in the
proposed realignment area, then a label containing the words ``Arroyo
Seco'' in the brand name or as an appellation of origin would not be
permitted on the label. TTB believes that the two-year transition
period should provide affected label holders with adequate time to use
up any old labels. This

[[Page 43758]]

transition period is described in the regulatory text of this proposed
rule. TTB notes that wine made primarily from grapes grown in the
proposed realignment area would be eligible to be labeled with ``Santa
Lucia Highlands'' as an appellation of origin upon the effective date
of the final rule. Finally, TTB is not proposing a similar transition
period for wines labeled with ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' that are
produced primarily from grapes grown in the area proposed to be removed
from the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, because the petition states that
there are no current or planned vineyards within the proposed removal
area.

Public Participation

Comments Invited

TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on
whether it should modify the boundaries of the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA as proposed. TTB is also interested in
receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the information
submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available
specific information in support of your comments.
TTB also encourages comments from industry members with wine labels
potentially affected by the proposed realignment of land from the
Arroyo Seco AVA into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. If a commenter
believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the
nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic
impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing
viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving
suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a
modified or different boundary for either AVA.

Submitting Comments

You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the
following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the
online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2020-
0007 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available
under Notice No. 192 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments
submitted via Regulations.gov. 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.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 192 and include your
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English,
be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public
disclosure. 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 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.
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, selected
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2020-0007 on the Federal e-
rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at https://www.regulations.gov. A
direct link to that docket is available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 192. You may
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page
at https://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 obtain copies of this proposed rule, all related
petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or
mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal at 20 cents per
8.5 x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of
USGS maps or any similarly-sized documents that may be included as part
of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings Division by
email using the web form at https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by
telephone at 202-453-1039, ext. 175, 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 9.59 is amended by removing paragraphs (c)(12) and (13),
redesignating paragraphs (c)(14) through

[[Page 43759]]

(21) as paragraphs (c)(17) through (24), and adding new paragraphs
(c)(12) through (16) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 9.59 Arroyo Seco.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(12) Then south following Paraiso Road to its intersection with an
unnamed, light-duty road north of Clark Road in Section 20, T18S/R6E;
(13) Then east-southeast along the unnamed road for 0.3 mile to its
intersection with an intermittent stream;
(14) Then southwesterly along the intermittent stream for 0.2 mile
to its intersection with the western boundary of Section 21, T18S/R6E;
(15) Then south-southwest in a straight line for approximately 0.3
mile to the intersection of Clark Road and the southern boundary of
Section 21, T18S/R6E;
(16) Then west-southwest along Clark Road for 0.2 mile to its
intersection with an unnamed, light-duty road;
* * * * *
(d) Transition period. A label containing the words ``Arroyo Seco''
in the brand name or as an appellation of origin approved prior to
[EFFECTIVE DATE] may be used on wine bottled before [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE], if the wine conforms to the standards for use of the
label set forth in Sec. 4.25 or Sec. 4.39(i) of this chapter in
effect prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE].
0
3. Section 9.139 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (c)(10) through
(22) as paragraphs (c)(18) through (30), revising paragraphs (c)(1)
through (9), and adding new paragraphs (c)(10) through (17).
The revisions/additions read as follows:

Sec. 9.139 Santa Lucia Highlands.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) From the beginning point, the boundary follows Limekiln Creek
for approximately 1.2 miles northeast to the 120-foot elevation
contour.
(2) Then following the 120-foot elevation contour in a general
southeasterly direction for approximately 0.9 mile to where it
intersects with River Road.
(3) Then following River Road in a southeasterly direction for 0.3
mile to its intersection with an unimproved road near the marked 130-
foot elevation.
(4) Then follow a straight line southeast to the terminus of the
110-foot elevation contour.
(5) Then follow a straight line southeast 0.9 mile, crossing onto
the Gonzales map, to the Salinas River.
(6) Then follow the Salinas River in a south-southeast direction
0.7 mile, crossing onto the Palo Escrito map, to the intersection of
the Salinas River and the 120-foot elevation contour.
(7) Then follow the 120-foot contour south for 1 mile, then
southeast to its intersection with River Road.
(8) Then follow River Road east for 0.1 mile to its intersection
with an unnamed, light-duty road.
(9) Then follow the unnamed road southeast for 0.2 mile to its
intersection with the 160-foot elevation contour.
(10) Then follow the 160-foot elevation contour southeasterly for
approximately 5.9 miles to its intersection with River Road.
(11) Then follow River Road southeasterly for approximately 1 mile
to the intersection of River, Fort Romie, and Foothill Roads.
(12) Then following Foothill Road in a southeasterly direction for
approximately 4 miles to the junction of Foothill Road and Paraiso
Roads on the Soledad map.
(13) Then follow Paraiso Road in a southerly direction, crossing
onto the Paraiso Springs map, to its intersection with an unnamed,
light-duty road north of Clark Road in Section 20, T18S/R6E.
(14) Then follow the unnamed road east-southeast for 0.3 mile to
its intersection with an intermittent stream.
(15) Then follow the intermittent stream in a southwesterly
direction for 0.2 mile to its intersection with the western boundary of
Section 21, T18S/R6E.
(16) Then follow a straight line south-southwest for 0.3 mile to
the intersection of Clark Road and the southern boundary of Section 21,
T18S/R6E.
(17) Then follow Clark Road west-southwest for 0.2 mile to its
intersection with an unnamed, light-duty road.
* * * * *

Signed: March 10, 2020.
Mary G. Ryan,
Acting Administrator.
Approved: June 2, 2020.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2020-14579 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P