[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61899-61907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17624]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2020-0009; Notice No. 194]
RIN 1513-AC59


Proposed Establishment of the San Luis Obispo Coast (SLO Coast) 
Viticultural Area

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to 
establish the 408,585-acre ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' viticultural area 
in San Luis Obispo County, California. TTB is proposing to recognize 
both ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' and the abbreviated ``SLO Coast'' as the 
name of the proposed AVA. The proposed AVA is located entirely within 
the existing Central Coast AVA and would encompass the established Edna 
Valley and Arroyo Grande Valley AVAs. 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: TTB must receive your comments on or before November 30, 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-2020-0009 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 or U.S. mail, and for full details on how to 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 the functions 
and duties in the administration and enforcement of these provisions to 
the TTB Administrator through Treasury Order 120-01, dated December 10, 
2013 (superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003).
    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

[[Page 61900]]

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 
establish an AVA must include the following:
     Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is 
nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
     An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of 
the proposed AVA;
     A narrative description of the features of the proposed 
AVA that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical 
features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and 
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
     If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or 
overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the 
attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing 
AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the 
existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition;
     The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of 
the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
     A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA 
boundary based on USGS map markings.

Petition To Establish the San Luis Obispo Coast (SLO Coast) AVA

    TTB received a petition from the SLO Coast AVA Association, 
proposing to establish the ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' AVA. The petition 
also requested that TTB recognize the abbreviated name ``SLO Coast'' as 
an approved alternative name for the proposed AVA. For purposes of the 
remainder of this document, TTB will refer to the proposed AVA as ``SLO 
Coast.''
    The proposed SLO Coast AVA is located in San Luis Obispo County, 
California, and is entirely within the existing Central Coast AVA (27 
CFR 9.75). The proposed AVA would also encompass the existing Edna 
Valley (27 CFR 9.35) and Arroyo Grande Valley (27 CFR 9.129) AVAs. 
Within the 408,585-acre proposed AVA, there are over 50 wineries and 
approximately 78 commercial vineyards, which cover a total of 
approximately 3,942 acres. The petition states that of those 3,942 
acres of vineyards, approximately 2,661 acres are in the existing Edna 
Valley AVA, 838 acres are in the existing Arroyo Grande AVA, and 398 
acres are distributed throughout the remaining portion of the proposed 
AVA. The distinguishing features of the proposed SLO Coast AVA are its 
topography, climate, and soils. Unless otherwise noted, all information 
and data contained in the following sections are from the petition to 
establish the proposed AVA and its supporting exhibits.

Proposed SLO Coast AVA

Name Evidence

    The proposed SLO Coast AVA derives its name from its location in 
coastal San Luis Obispo County. The petition notes that the region is 
often referred to as ``SLO,'' which is a reference to both the county's 
initials and its relaxed culture. The petition states that although the 
full name of the proposed AVA is ``San Luis Obispo Coast,'' the 
frequently-used abbreviation ``SLO'' should also be recognized by TTB 
in order to avoid consumer confusion.
    The petition included a number of examples of the use of the name 
``SLO Coast'' to describe the region of the proposed AVA. For example, 
a book about Santa Barbara County and California's Central Coast 
contains a chapter titled ``Coastal SLO'' that uses the phrase ``SLO 
Coast'' nearly a dozen times.\1\ The petition shows that businesses 
within the proposed AVA include SLO Coast Jerky, SLO Coast Diner, SLO 
Coast Catering, SLO Coast Realty, SLO Coast Insurance Services, SLO 
Coast Custom Print and Laser, SLO Coast Construction, and SLO Coast 
Coffee. An online magazine featuring information about the region of 
the proposed AVA is called SLO Coast Journal.\2\ Finally, on his 2016 
campaign website, State Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning described 
his district as encompassing ``the SLO Coast towns of Pismo Beach, 
Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande,'' \3\ all of which are within the 
proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Wares, Donna. An Explorer's Guide--Santa Barbara & 
California's Central Coast. New York: The Countryman Press, 2011.
    \2\ slocoastjournal.net.
    \3\ http://www.billmonning.org/2016/district.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boundary Evidence

    The proposed SLO Coast AVA is a long, relatively narrow region that 
encompasses the portion of San Luis Obispo County that is oriented 
towards the Pacific Ocean and experiences an immediate marine 
influence. The proposed AVA is 1.7 miles across at its narrowest point 
and 15.1 miles across at its widest point. According to the petition, 
approximately 97 percent of the proposed AVA sits at elevations below 
1,800 feet, which is described in the petition as the approximate limit 
of strong marine influence.
    The northern boundary of the proposed AVA follows the northern 
Piedras Blancas Grant boundary and separates the proposed AVA from the 
Los Padres National Forest. Beyond the northern boundary, the 
elevations rise sharply and become more rugged. The eastern boundary 
follows a series of straight lines between peaks of the Santa Lucia 
Range, as well as the boundary of the Los Padres National Forest, to 
separate the proposed AVA from regions that are oriented away from the 
Pacific Ocean and receive little direct marine influence. The southern 
boundary generally follows the Nipomo Mesa and the boundary of the 
Oceano State Vehicular Recreation Area. The region south of this 
boundary is sandier than the proposed AVA and also contains State 
recreational area lands that are not appropriate for vineyard 
development. The western boundary of the proposed AVA follows the 
coastline of the Pacific Ocean.

Distinguishing Features

    According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. Because 
the Pacific Ocean is to the west of the proposed AVA, the following 
sections will only compare the features of the proposed AVA to the 
surrounding regions to the north, east, and south.
Topography
    The petition describes the proposed SLO Coast AVA as a region of 
coastal terraces, foothills, and small valleys along the Pacific Coast. 
The region is oriented to the west, allowing the region to experience 
marine fog and cool marine air. According to the petition, 97 percent 
of the proposed AVA is at or below 1,800 feet in elevation, which 
corresponds to the approximate limit of the influence of the maritime 
climate. The petition states that the steady maritime influence 
prevents temperatures from rising too high or dropping too low for 
optimal vineyard conditions.
    According to U.S.G.S maps provided with the petition, to the north 
of the proposed AVA, the elevations rise to over 3,000 feet and the 
terrain is steep and rough. The higher elevations are above the maximum 
extent of the marine air and fog that characterizes the proposed AVA. 
Additionally, the land north of the proposed AVA was excluded because 
most of it is within the Los Padres National Forest and thus is 
unavailable for commercial

[[Page 61901]]

viticulture. To the east of the proposed AVA is the eastern side of the 
Santa Lucia Range. This region is oriented to the east, away from the 
Pacific Ocean, and is thus not as exposed to the marine influence as 
the proposed AVA. To the south of the proposed AVA is the Santa Maria 
Valley, which has a much flatter topography.
Climate
    The proposed SLO Coast AVA petition included information on the 
climate of the proposed AVA, including growing degree day \4\ (GDD) 
accumulations and Winkler Regions \5\, average maximum and minimum 
temperatures, and cloud cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ According to the petition, GDDs for a particular region are 
calculated by adding the total mean daily temperatures above 50 
degrees Fahrenheit (F) for the days from April 1 through October 31. 
The formula is based on the concept that most vine-shoot growth 
occurs in temperatures over 50 degrees F.
    \5\ See Albert J. Winkler, General Viticulture (Berkeley: 
University of California Press, 2nd. ed. 1974), pages 61-64. In the 
Winkler scale, the GDD regions are defined as follows: Region I = 
less than 2,500 GDDs; Region II = 2,501-3,000 GDDs; Region III = 
3,001-3,500 GDDs; Region IV = 3,501-4,000 GDDs; Region V = greater 
than 4,000 GDDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GDD accumulations and Winkler Regions: The petition included data 
on the average GDD accumulations and the corresponding Winkler Region 
for the proposed AVA and the surrounding regions. The information for 
the entire proposed SLO Coast AVA is included in the following table, 
along with the information for several established AVAs in the 
surrounding regions and for the established Edna Valley and Arroyo 
Grande Valley AVAs, which are located within the proposed AVA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The petition included GDD and Winkler Region information for 
additional established AVAs in California and Washington and wine 
regions in France. However, TTB believes that the additional AVAs 
are too far from the proposed AVA to provide relevant comparisons. 
All GDD and Winkler Region information from the petition can be 
found in the online docket at www.regulations.gov.

             Table 1--GDD Accumulations and Winkler Regions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AVA name  (direction from      GDD  accumulation
          proposed AVA)                   \7\           Winkler region
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed SLO Coast..............               2,493                   I
Edna Valley (within)............               2,738                  II
Arroyo Grande Valley (within)...               2,786                  II
Monterey (NE)...................               2,594                  II
Arroyo Seco (NE)................               2,680                  II
York Mountain (E)...............               2,772                  II
Paso Robles (E).................               3,425                 III
Santa Maria Valley (S)..........               2,733                  II
Santa Ynez Valley (S)...........               2,844                  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shows that the proposed SLO Coast AVA, as a whole, has a 
lower GDD accumulation and is in a lower Winkler Region than the 
surrounding regions. The established Edna Valley and Arroyo Grande 
Valley AVAs, which are located within the proposed AVA, have higher 
individual GDD accumulations and are in a higher Winkler Region than 
the remainder of the proposed AVA. The petition explains that both of 
these AVAs are somewhat sheltered from the marine influence but still 
receive more marine air and fog than the regions outside the proposed 
AVA on the eastern side of the Santa Lucia Range, such as the Paso 
Robles AVA. The petition suggests that the Arroyo Grande Valley AVA's 
GDD accumulation may be skewed high due to the fact that the far 
eastern portion of that AVA, which represents approximately 5 percent 
of the total acreage of the proposed SLO Coast AVA, is in a narrow, 
sheltered canyon that is classified as a Winkler Region III. 
Furthermore, Appendices 4 through 6 of the petition \8\ include 
evidence that other protected pockets with Winkler Region II GDD 
accumulations exist within the proposed SLO Coast AVA, so including the 
Arroyo Grande Valley and Edna Valley AVAs would not be inconsistent 
with the characteristics of the rest of the proposed AVA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Derived from climate data from 1971-2000. See petition for 
additional information regarding GDD calculations.
    \8\ See Appendices 4 through 6 to the petition in Docket TTB-
2020-0009 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the petition, low GDD accumulations limit which grape 
varietals can be successfully grown in the region. The petition states 
that areas classified as Winkler Region I, like the majority of the 
proposed AVA, are well-suited for growing early-to-mid-season-ripening 
varietals such as Chardonnay and Pinot Noir, which comprise 43 percent 
and 35 percent, respectively, of the total planted vineyard acreage 
within the proposed SLO Coast AVA.
    Average minimum and maximum growing season temperatures: The 
petition states that the average minimum growing season temperature for 
nearly 90 percent of the proposed SLO Coast AVA is between 47.5 degrees 
F and 52 degrees F.\9\ The petition attributes the mild minimum 
temperatures of the proposed AVA to its proximity to the waters of the 
Pacific Ocean, which have a high heat capacity that provides a constant 
moderation on the climate. Likewise, the ocean moderates the average 
maximum growing season temperature of the proposed AVA. Sea breeze 
circulation, driven by inland heating, keeps the daytime temperatures 
lower along the coast than within the inland valleys east of the 
proposed AVA. According to the petition, 21 percent of the proposed SLO 
Coast AVA has an average maximum growing season temperature of less 
than 70 degrees F, while another 68 percent of the proposed AVA has an 
average maximum growing season temperature of between 70 and 78 degrees 
F.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Derived from climate data from 1981-2015. See Appendix 7 to 
the petition in Docket TTB-2020-0009 at https://www.regulations.gov.
    \10\ Derived from climate data from 1981-2015. See Appendix 8 to 
the petition in Docket TTB-2020-0009 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, the region east of the proposed AVA is sheltered by 
the Santa Lucia Mountains from the moderating influence of the Pacific 
Ocean. As a result, the region has lower average minimum temperatures 
and higher average maximum temperatures than the proposed AVA. For 
example, the majority of the established Paso Robles AVA has an average 
minimum growing season temperature that is below 50 degrees F, but a 
large portion of that AVA is even cooler, with an average minimum 
temperature below 46 degrees F. The average maximum growing

[[Page 61902]]

season temperature within the Paso Robles AVA is above 80 degrees F.
    The region south of the proposed AVA, which includes the 
established Santa Maria Valley AVA, has a flatter terrain than the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA and is thus more exposed to the marine air. As a 
result, the region to the south has a higher average minimum growing 
season temperature and a lower average maximum growing season 
temperature than the proposed AVA.
    The petition states that the mild minimum and maximum growing 
season temperatures within the proposed SLO Coast AVA affect 
viticulture. Mild minimum temperatures lead to a shorter period of 
wintertime vine dormancy and earlier spring bud breaks. However, early 
spring bud breaks are not a concern for grape growers in the proposed 
AVA because potentially damaging frost events that can damage or kill 
early vine growth in the spring are far less common in coastal regions 
than they are in inland valleys. Lower maximum temperatures lead to a 
reduced risk of fruit desiccation and also produce higher levels of 
malic acid in the grapes, which increases total acidities and lowers pH 
values. Finally, the petition notes that the cooler temperatures of the 
proposed AVA can affect the flavor profile of certain grape varietals, 
specifically Syrah. The petition claims that Syrah grown in cooler 
climates such as the proposed AVA features more pepper and gamey 
flavors compared to the riper, fruitier flavors found in Syrah grown in 
warmer regions.
    Cloud cover: The petition also provided information about nighttime 
cloud cover over the proposed SLO Coast AVA and the surrounding 
regions. The petition states that daytime fog is typically present in 
coastal regions of California, but that it quickly dissipates as the 
air heats up. In the evening, land temperatures decrease and the moist 
air above cools to its dew point, resulting in nighttime fog.
    According to the petition, the majority of the proposed SLO Coast 
AVA experiences nighttime fog cover between 35 and 55 percent of all 
nights during the growing season.\11\ The region of the proposed AVA 
immediately adjacent to the coast, the Morro Bay area, and the 
southernmost region of the proposed AVA all experience fog 55 of 75 
percent of all nights during the growing season. By contrast, the 
majority of the region east of the proposed AVA experiences fog less 
than 30 percent of all nights during the growing season, while the 
region south of the proposed AVA has fog over 55 percent of all nights 
during the growing season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Derived from climate data from 2003-2015. See Appendix 9 of 
the petition in Docket TTB-2020-0009 at https://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petition states that cloud cover in the form of nighttime fog 
has an effect on viticulture within the proposed AVA. The fog prevents 
nighttime temperatures from dropping significantly. As a result, the 
proposed AVA generally experiences temperature changes of no more than 
20 to 30 degrees F throughout the day. The moderate nighttime 
temperatures lead to longer growing seasons within the proposed AVA. By 
contrast, regions to the east with less nighttime fog experience 40 to 
50 degree swings and a greater risk of damaging early spring frosts.
Soils
    The petition states that the soils of the proposed SLO Coast AVA 
can be classified into four groups. The first group is derived from 
older Franciscan Formation geology. This group represents the largest 
proportion of soils within the boundaries of the proposed AVA and is 
found in the northern and central portions of the proposed AVA. These 
soils derive from sandstone, shale, and metamorphosed sedimentary 
rocks, and they vary from very thin, rocky soils on hills and mountains 
to very deep clay and clay-loam soils along lower-lying alluvial fans 
and terraces. These soils are highly varied due to the highly complex 
nature of the Franciscan Formation geology that produced these soils. 
The soils of this group that are most suitable for viticulture are 
found on foothills, terraces, and valleys and have good drainage, 
moderate water holding capacity, and a high mineral content. Examples 
of soil series in this group include Diablo, San Simeon, Shimmon, 
Conception, and Santa Lucia series.
    The second group of soils found in the proposed AVA consists of 
younger marine deposits and basin sediments from the Miocene and 
Pliocene periods. These soils represent the second largest proportion 
of soils in the proposed AVA and are mostly found in the southern 
region of the proposed AVA. Most of these soils are composed of sandy 
loam and loams derived from marine deposits of sandstone and shale, and 
they have less clay than soils in the northern portion of the proposed 
AVA. The higher sand content provides excellent drainage for vineyards, 
but often requires irrigation during the growing season. Examples of 
soil series in this group include Pismo, Briones, Tierrs, Gazos, 
Nacimiento, Linne, Balcom, and Sorrento series.
    The third group of soils found in the proposed AVA is derived from 
volcanic intrusion and represents a very small proportion of the soils 
within the proposed AVA, occurring mostly in isolated instances on very 
steep terrain within the Santa Lucia Mountains, as well as along the 
rocky outcrops near Morro Bay. Most soils in this group are thick and 
are found on excessively steep terrain or rocky outcrops that are 
unsuitable for viticulture.
    The fourth group of soils within the proposed AVA is derived from 
wind deposits and comprises the sand dunes and low areas near the 
coast. These soils comprise a very small portion of the proposed AVA, 
mainly along the coastline near Morro Bay and around the township of 
Nipomo. They consist of very deep sands at low elevations and are 
excessively drained soils with a high sodium content, making them 
generally unsuitable for viticulture.
    To the south of the proposed AVA, within the established Santa 
Maria AVA, the soils are largely from younger geological periods and 
consist of deep, fertile, sandy soils that are well-suited for 
viticulture. These soils are derived from alluvial deposits and contain 
less clay and clay loam than the majority of soils in the proposed AVA. 
To the east of the proposed AVA, within the established Paso Robles 
AVA, the soils consist of alluvial and terrace deposits. The region 
north of the proposed AVA is characterized by rocky outcrops, shallow 
soils derived from sandstone and metamorphic rock, and soils derived 
from igneous and granitic rocks.

Summary of Distinguishing Features

    The topography, climate, and soils of the proposed SLO Coast AVA 
distinguish it from the surrounding regions to the north, east, and 
south. To the west of the proposed AVA is the Pacific Ocean. The 
following table summarizes the distinguishing features of the proposed 
AVA and the surrounding regions.

[[Page 61903]]



                                   Table 2--Summary of Distinguishing Features
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Region                      Topography                  Climate                     Soils
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed SLO Coast AVA.............  Coastal terraces,       Marine influenced climate    Majority of soils
                                      foothills, and small    with average GDD             derived from
                                      valleys with western    accumulation of 2,493,       Franciscan Formation
                                      orientations and        average minimum growing      and marine deposits
                                      elevations below        season temperatures          and basin sediments,
                                      1,800 feet.             between 47.5 and 52          with some soils
                                                              degrees F, average maximum   formed from volcanic
                                                              growing season               intrusion and wind
                                                              temperatures between 70      deposited sand.
                                                              and 78 degrees, and
                                                              frequent nighttime fog.
North..............................  Steep, mountainous      Less marine influence,       Shallow soils derived
                                      region with             higher GDD accumulations,    from sandstone and
                                      elevations over 3,000   lower average growing        metamorphic rocks and
                                      feet.                   season minimum               igneous and granitic
                                                              temperature, higher          rocks.
                                                              average growing season
                                                              maximum temperature, less
                                                              nighttime fog.
East...............................  Eastern slope           Less marine influence,       Alluvial and terrace
                                      orientation.            higher GDD accumulations,    deposits, as well
                                                              lower average growing        rock outcrop in the
                                                              season minimum               Santa Lucia Mountain
                                                              temperature, higher          Range.
                                                              average growing season
                                                              maximum temperature, less
                                                              nighttime fog.
South..............................  Flat valley terrain...  Higher GDD accumulations,    Younger soils
                                                              higher average growing       consisting of deep,
                                                              season minimum               fertile, sandy soils.
                                                              temperature, lower average
                                                              growing season maximum
                                                              temperature, more
                                                              nighttime fog.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison of the Proposed SLO Coast AVA to the Existing Edna Valley 
AVA

    The Edna Valley AVA was established by T.D. ATF-101, which was 
published in the Federal Register on May 12, 1982 (47 FR 20298). The 
AVA is located in the southeastern portion of the proposed SLO Coast 
AVA and covers approximately 35 square miles. T.D. ATF-101 states that 
the Edna Valley AVA consists of a natural valley that has a 
predominately Region II climate with a few pockets that classify as 
Region I. A gap in the coastal mountains allows marine air and fog to 
enter the valley and keep the summer temperatures lower and the winter 
temperatures warmer than the temperature farther to the east, beyond 
the Santa Lucia Mountains. Elevations range from 120 to 300 feet, and 
the soils are generally sandy clay loam, clay loam, or clay.
    The proposed SLO Coast AVA shares some of the general viticultural 
features of the Edna Valley AVA. For example, temperatures within both 
the proposed AVA and the established AVA are influenced by marine air 
and fog and are generally cooler than temperatures in the region to the 
east. Both the proposed AVA and the established AVA also have similar 
soils of clay and loam. However, the proposed AVA also has some unique 
characteristics. For instance, the majority of the proposed AVA can be 
classified as a Region I climate with pockets of Region II 
microclimates, whereas most of the established Edna Valley AVA is 
classified as a Region II climate with pockets of Region I 
microclimates. Additionally, the proposed SLO Coast AVA has a wider 
range of elevations than the Edna Valley AVA.

Comparison of the Proposed SLO Coast AVA to the Existing Arroyo Grande 
Valley AVA

    The Arroyo Grande Valley AVA was established by T.D. ATF-291, which 
was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 1990 (55 FR 285). 
The AVA is located in the southeastern region of the proposed SLO Coast 
AVA, adjacent to the Edna Valley AVA, and covers approximately 67 
square miles. T.D. ATF-291 states that the Arroyo Grande Valley AVA is 
primarily distinguished by its climate, which is described as ranging 
from high Region I to Region II. The AVA experiences frequent morning 
and evening fog and temperatures, and is moderated by the marine 
influence.
    The proposed SLO Coast AVA shares some of the general viticultural 
features of the Arroyo Grande Valley AVA. For example, both the 
proposed AVA and the established AVA experience morning and evening 
fog. They also both have temperatures that are influenced by marine air 
and are generally cooler than temperatures in the region to the east. 
However, the proposed AVA is described as having an overall cooler 
climate than the Arroyo Grande Valley AVA, which is in a more sheltered 
location within the proposed AVA and experiences less direct marine 
influence.

Comparison of the Proposed SLO Coast AVA to the existing Central Coast 
AVA

    The approximately 1 million-acre Central Coast AVA was established 
by T.D. ATF-216, which was published in the Federal Register on October 
24, 1985 (50 FR 43128). The AVA is a large, multi-county AVA that 
entirely encompasses the proposed SLO Coast AVA. T.D. ATF-216 states 
that the Central Coast AVA is primarily distinguished by its marine-
influenced climate. The AVA experiences maximum high temperatures, 
minimum low temperatures, marine fog intrusion, relative humidity, 
length of growing season, and precipitation that are significantly 
different from conditions on the eastern (inland) side of the Coastal 
Ranges.
    The proposed SLO Coast AVA shares some of the general viticultural 
features of the Central Coast AVA. For example, both the proposed AVA 
and the established AVA experience fog, have temperatures that are 
influenced by marine air, and are generally milder than temperatures in 
the inland region to the east. However, due to its smaller size, the 
climate, topography, and soils of the proposed AVA are less varied than 
those of the much larger Central Coast AVA.

TTB Determination

    TTB concludes that the petition to establish the 408,585-acre ``SLO 
Coast'' AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this 
proposed rule.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative boundary descriptions of the petitioned-for AVA 
in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

Maps

    The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed 
below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed 
SLO Coast AVA

[[Page 61904]]

boundary 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 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 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 establishes this proposed AVA, its name, ``San Luis Obispo 
Coast'' or its abbreviated name ``SLO Coast,'' will be recognized as a 
name of viticultural significance under Sec.  4.39(i)(3) of the TTB 
regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the proposed regulation 
clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using ``San Luis 
Obispo Coast'' or ``SLO Coast'' 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 viticultural area's 
name ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' or the alternative abbreviated name 
``SLO Coast'' as an appellation of origin.
    The approval of the proposed ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' or ``SLO 
Coast'' AVA would not affect any existing AVA. If approved, the 
establishment of the proposed SLO Coast AVA would allow vintners to use 
``San Luis Obispo Coast,'' ``SLO Coast,'' or ``Central Coast'' as 
appellations of origin for wines made from grapes grown within the SLO 
Coast AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the 
appellation. Furthermore, vintners whose wines meet the eligibility 
requirements to use either ``Edna Valley'' or ``Arroyo Grande Valley'' 
as appellations of origin would also be able to use ``San Luis Obispo 
Coast,'' ``SLO Coast,'' and ``Central Coast'' as appellations of origin 
on those wines.

Public Participation

Comments Invited

    TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on 
whether TTB should establish the proposed SLO Coast AVA. TTB is 
interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the 
name, boundary, topography, and other required information submitted in 
support of the SLO Coast AVA petition. In addition, because the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA would be within the existing Central Coast AVA 
and would encompass the existing Edna Valley and Arroyo Grande Valley 
AVAs, TTB is interested in comments on whether the evidence submitted 
in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed 
AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the existing AVAs. TTB is also 
interested in comments on whether the geographic features of the 
proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the Central Coast AVA that the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA should not be part of the established AVA. 
Finally, TTB invites comments on whether the geographical features of 
either the Edna Valley or Arroyo Grande Valley AVA are so 
distinguishable from the proposed SLO Coast AVA that one or both of the 
established AVAs should not be part of the proposed AVA. Please provide 
any available specific information in support of your comments.
    Because of the potential impact of the establishment of the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA on wine labels that include the term ``SLO 
Coast'' or ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' as discussed above under Impact on 
Current Wine Labels, TTB is particularly interested in comments 
regarding whether there will be a conflict between the proposed area 
names and currently used brand names. 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 name 
for the proposed AVA.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit comments on this proposal by using one of the 
following two methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the 
online comment form posted with this document within Docket No. TTB-
2020-0009 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at 
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available 
under Notice No. 194 on the TTB website at 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 at the 
top of the page.
     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 
document. Your comments must reference Notice No. 194 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. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider 
all comments as originals.
    Your comment must clearly state if you are commenting on your own 
behalf or on behalf of an organization, business, or other entity. If 
you are commenting on behalf of an organization, business, or other 
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, 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 document, selected 
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about 
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2020-0009 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/

[[Page 61905]]

wine-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 194. You may also reach the 
relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at https://www.regulations.gov. For instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, 
visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab at the top of the page.
    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 it 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 document.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

Proposed Regulatory Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose 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. Add Sec.  9. ___ to read as follows:


Sec.  9.___   San Luis Obispo Coast.

    (a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this 
section is ``San Luis Obispo Coast''. ``SLO Coast'' may also be used as 
the name of the viticultural area described in this section. For 
purposes of part 4 of this chapter, ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' and ``SLO 
Coast'' are terms of viticultural significance.
    (b) Approved maps. The 24 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the 
San Luis Obispo Coast viticultural area are titled:
    (1) Burro Mountain, 1995;
    (2) Piedras Blancas, 1959; photoinspected 1976;
    (3) San Simeon, 1958; photoinspected 1976;
    (4) Pebblestone Shut-In, 1959; photoinspected 1976;
    (5) Lime Mountain, 1948; photo revised 1979;
    (6) Cypress Mountain, 1979;
    (7) York Mountain, 1948; photorevised 1979;
    (8) Morro Bay North, 1995;
    (9) Atascadero, 1995;
    (10) San Luis Obispo, 1968; photorevised 1978;
    (11) Morro Bay South, 1965; photorevised 1978;
    (12) Lopez Mountain, 1995;
    (13) Arroyo Grande NE, 1985;
    (14) Tar Spring Ridge, 1995;
    (15) Nipomo, 1965;
    (16) Huasna Peak, 1995;
    (17) Twitchell Dam, 1959; photorevised 1982;
    (18) Santa Maria, 1959; photorevised 1982;
    (19) Oceano, 1965; revised 1994
    (20) Pismo Beach, 1998;
    (21) Port San Luis, 1965; photorevised 1979;
    (22) Cayucus, 1965; revised 1994;
    (23) Cambria, 1959; photorevised 1979; and
    (24) Pico Creek, 1959; photorevised 1979.
    (c) Boundary. The San Luis Obispo Coast viticultural area is 
located in San Luis Obispo County in California. The boundary of the 
San Luis Obispo Coast viticultural area is as described below:
    (1) The beginning point is on the Burro Mountain map at the 
intersection of the northern boundary of the Piedra Blanca Grant 
boundary and the Pacific Ocean. From the beginning point, proceed 
southeast along the grant boundary to its intersection with the western 
boundary of Section 15, T25S/R6E; then
    (2) Proceed northeast in a straight line to a marked 1,462-foot 
peak in Section 11, T25S/R6E; then
    (3) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Piedras 
Blancas map, to a marked 2,810-fook peak in Section 19, T25S/R7E; then
    (4) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing onto the San 
Simeon map, to the 2,397-foot peak of Garrity Peak in the Piedra Blanca 
Land Grant; then
    (5) Proceed east in a straight line to a marked 2,729-foot peak in 
Section 32, T25S/R8E; then
    (6) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing onto the 
Pebblestone Shut-In map, to the 3,432-foot peak of Rocky Butte in 
Section 24, T26S/R8E; then
    (7) Proceed southeast in a straight line to the 2,849-foot peak of 
Vulture Rock in Section 29, T26S/R9E; then
    (8) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing over the Lime 
Mountain map and onto the Cypress Mountain map to the 2,933-foot peak 
of Cypress Mountain in Section 12, T27S/R9E; then
    (9) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing onto the York 
Mountain map, to the intersection of Dover Canyon Road and a jeep trail 
in Dover Canyon in Section 14, T27S/R10E; then
    (10) Proceed southwesterly, then southeasterly along the jeep trail 
to the point where the jeep trail becomes an unnamed light-duty road, 
and continuing southeasterly along the road to its intersection Santa 
Rita Creek in Section 25, T27S/R10E; then
    (11) Proceed easterly along Santa Rita Creek to the point where the 
creek splits into a northern and a southern fork; then
    (12) Proceed east in a straight line to Cayucos Templeton Road, 
then proceed south along Cayucos Templeton Road, crossing onto the 
Morro Bay North map and continuing along the road as it becomes Santa 
Rita Road, to the intersection of the road with the northeast boundary 
of Section 20, T28S/R11E; then
    (13) Proceed southeast along the northeast boundary of Section 20 
to its intersection with the western boundary of the Los Padres 
National Forest; then
    (14) Proceed south, then southeasterly along the western boundary 
of the Los Padres National Forest, crossing over the Atascadero map and 
onto the San Luis Obispo map, to the intersection of the forest 
boundary with the boundary

[[Page 61906]]

of the Camp San Luis Obispo National Guard Reservation at the 
northeastern corner of Section 32, T29S/R12E; then
    (15) Proceed south, then generally southwesterly along the boundary 
of Camp San Luis Obispo National Guard Reservation, crossing onto the 
Morro Bay South map and then back onto the San Luis Obispo map, and 
then continuing generally easterly along the military reservation 
boundary to the intersection of the boundary with a marked 1,321-foot 
peak along the northern boundary of the Potrero de San Luis Obispo Land 
Grant; then
    (16) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Lopez 
Mountain map, to the southeastern corner of Section 18, T30S/R13E; then
    (17) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line to the southeast 
corner of Section 29; then
    (18) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line to a marked 2,094-
foot peak in Section 2, T31S/R13E; then
    (19) Proceed southeasterly in a straight line, crossing onto the 
Arroyo Grande NE map, to the intersection of the 1,800-foot elevation 
contour and the western boundary of the Los Padres National Forest, 
along the eastern boundary of Section 12, T31S/R13E; then
    (20) Proceed south along the boundary of the Los Padres National 
Forest to the southeastern corner of Section 13, T31S/R13E; then
    (21) Proceed southeast in a straight line to a marked 1,884-foot 
peak in Section 19, T31S/R14E; then
    (22) Proceed southeast in a straight line to northwesternmost 
corner of the boundary of the Lopez Lake Recreation Area in Section 19, 
T31S/R14E; then
    (23) Proceed south, then generally east along the boundary of the 
Lopez Lake Recreation Area, crossing onto the Tar Spring Ridge map, to 
the intersection of the boundary with an unnamed light-duty road known 
locally as Lopez Drive west of the Lopez Dam spillway in Section 32, 
T31S/R14E; then
    (24) Proceed east along Lopez Drive to its intersection with an 
unnamed light-duty road known as Hi Mountain Road in Section 34, T31S/
R14E; then
    (25) Proceed east along Hi Mountain Drive to its intersection with 
an unnamed light-duty road known locally as Upper Lopez Canyon Road in 
the Arroyo Grande Land Grant; then
    (26) Proceed north along Upper Lopez Canyon Road to its 
intersection with an unnamed, unimproved road that runs south to 
Ranchita Ranch; then
    (27) Proceed northeast in a straight line to a marked 1,183-foot 
peak in Section 19, T31S/R15E; then
    (28) Proceed southeast in a straight line to a marked 1,022-foot 
peak in Section 29, T31S/R15E; then
    (29) Proceed southwest in a straight line to a marked 1,310-foot 
peak in Section 30, T31S/R15E; then
    (30) Proceed southeast in a straight line to a marked 1,261-foot 
peak in Section 32, T31S/R15E; then
    (31) Proceed southeast in a straight line to a marked 1,436-foot 
peak in Section 4, T32S/R15E; then
    (32) Proceed southwest in a straight line to a marked 1,308-foot 
peak in the Huasna Land Grant; then
    (33) Proceed westerly in a straight line to a marked 1,070-foot 
peak in Section 1, T32S/R14E; then
    (34) Proceed southeast in a straight line to a marked 1,251-foot 
peak in the Huasna Land Grant; then
    (35) Proceed southwest in a straight line to a marked 1,458-foot 
peak in the Santa Manuela Land Grant; then
    (36) Proceed southeast in a straight line to a marked 1,377-foot 
peak in the Huasna Land Grant; then
    (37) Proceed southwest in a straight line, crossing onto the Nipomo 
map, to a marked 1,593-foot peak in the Santa Manuela Land Grant; then
    (38) Proceed southwest in a straight line to the jeep trail 
immediately north of a marked 1,549-foot peak in Section 35, T32S/R14E; 
then
    (39) Proceed northwesterly along the jeep trail to its intersection 
with an unnamed, unimproved road in the Santa Manuela Land Grant; then
    (40) Proceed south along the unimproved road to its intersection 
with Upper Los Berros Road No. 2 in Section 33, T32S/R14E; then
    (41) Proceed southeast along Upper Los Berros Road No. 2, crossing 
onto the Huasna Peak map, to the intersection of the road and State 
Highway 166; then
    (42) Proceed south, then westerly along State Highway 166, crossing 
over the Twitchell Dam, Santa Maria, and Nipomo maps, then back onto 
the Santa Maria map, to the intersection of State Highway 166 with U.S. 
Highway 101 in the Nipomo Land Grant; then
    (43) Proceed south along U.S. Highway 101 to its intersection with 
the north bank of the Santa Maria River; then
    (44) Proceed west along the north bank of the Santa Maria River to 
its intersection with the 200-foot elevation contour; then
    (45) Proceed generally west along the 200-foot elevation contour, 
crossing over the Nipomo map and onto the Oceano map, to a point north 
of where the north-south trending 100-foot elevation contour makes a 
sharp westerly turn in the Guadalupe Land Grant; then
    (46) Proceed due south in a straight line to the 100-foot elevation 
contour; then
    (47) Proceed westerly along the 100-foot elevation contour to its 
intersection with State Highway 1 in the Guadalupe Land Grant; then
    (48) Proceed northwesterly in a straight line to the eastern 
boundary of the Pismo Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area at Lettuce 
Lake in the Bolsa de Chamisal Land Grant; then
    (49) Proceed northerly along the eastern boundary of the Pismo 
Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area to the point where the boundary 
makes a sharp westerly turn just west of Black Lake in the Bolsa de 
Chamisal Land Grant; then
    (50) Northerly along the Indefinite Boundary of the Pismo Dunes 
National Preserve to corner just west of Black Lake in the Bolsa de 
Chamisal Land Grant; then
    (51) Proceed east in a straight line to an unnamed four wheel drive 
road east of Black Lake in the Bolsa de Chamisal Land Grant; then
    (52) Proceed north along the western fork of the four wheel drive 
road as it meanders to the east of White Lake, Big Twin Lake, and 
Pipeline Lake, to the point where the road intersects an unnamed creek 
at the southeastern end of Cienega Valley in the Bolsa de Chamisal Land 
Grant; then
    (53) Proceed northwesterly along the creek to its intersection with 
an unnamed dirt road known locally as Delta Lane south of the Oceano 
Airport; then
    (54) Proceed northerly along Delta Lane to its intersection with an 
unnamed light-duty road known locally as Ocean Street; then
    (55) Proceed east in a straight line to State Highway 1; then
    (56) Proceed northerly on State Highway 1, crossing onto the Pismo 
Beach map, to the highway's intersection with a light-duty road known 
locally as Harloe Avenue; then
    (57) Proceed west along Harloe Avenue to its intersection with the 
boundary of Pismo State Beach; then
    (58) Proceed northwesterly along the boundary of Pismo State Beach 
to its intersection with the Pacific Ocean coastline; then
    (59) Proceed northerly along the Pacific Ocean coastline, crossing 
over the Pismo Beach, Port San Luis, Morro Bay South, Morro Bay North, 
Cayucos, Cambria, Pico Creek, San Simeon, and Piedras Blancas maps and 
onto the Burro Mountain map, and returning to the beginning point.


[[Page 61907]]


     Signed: May 28, 2020.
Mary G. Ryan,
Acting Administrator.
    Approved: June 17, 2020.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).

    Editorial Note:  This document was received for publication by 
the Office of the Federal Register on August 7, 2020.


[FR Doc. 2020-17624 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P