[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13160-13165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05000]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

27 CFR Part 9

[Docket No. TTB-2020-0009; T.D. TTB-177; Ref: Notice No. 194]
RIN 1513-AC59


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

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

ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes 
the approximately 408,505-acre ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' viticultural 
area in San Luis Obispo County, California. TTB is also recognizing the 
abbreviated ``SLO Coast'' as the name of the AVA. The viticultural area 
is located entirely within the existing Central Coast viticultural area 
and encompasses 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.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 8, 2022.

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 to TTB 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 allows any interested 
party to 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 affecting 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 boundary;
     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.

San Luis Obispo Coast (SLO Coast) AVA Petition

    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 ``SLO Coast'' as a name for the 
proposed AVA, as ``SLO'' is a frequently-used reference to the county's 
initials as well as its relaxed culture. For purposes of the remainder 
of this document, TTB will refer to the proposed AVA as ``SLO Coast.'' 
The proposed AVA is located in San Luis Obispo County, California, and 
lies entirely within the established Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75). 
If established, the proposed AVA would also entirely encompass the 
established Edna Valley (27 CFR 9.35) and Arroyo Grande Valley (27 CFR 
9.129) AVAs. Within the approximately 480,585-acre proposed AVA, there 
are over 50 wineries, as well as an estimated 78 commercial vineyards 
covering approximately 3,942 acres. The distinguishing features of the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA are its topography, climate, and soils.
    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

[[Page 13161]]

the influence of the maritime climate. The maritime influence prevents 
temperatures from rising too high or dropping too low for optimal 
vineyard conditions.
    The proposed SLO Coast AVA's proximity to the Pacific Ocean 
moderates its temperatures. The average growing degree day accumulation 
(GDDs) \1\ for the proposed AVA from 1971-2000 was 2,493, which places 
the proposed AVA in Region I of the Winkler scale.\2\ The minimum 
growing season temperature for 90 percent of the proposed AVA is 
between 47.5 and 52 degrees Fahrenheit (F), based on data from 1981-
2015. Also based on data from 1981-2015, twenty-one percent of the 
proposed 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 between 70 and 78 degrees F. 
The petition also states that between 2003 and 2015, the proposed AVA 
experienced nighttime fog cover between 35 and 55 percent of all nights 
during the growing season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
    \2\ See Albert J. Winkler et al., 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the petition, the climate of the proposed AVA makes it 
suitable for growing early-to-mid-season grape varietals such as 
Chardonnay and Pinot Noir, which compromise 43 and 35 percent, 
respectively, of the planted vineyard acreage of the proposed AVA. The 
petition also states that mild average minimum growing season 
temperatures lead to a shorter period of vine dormancy in the proposed 
AVA. The lower average maximum growing season temperatures (compared to 
surrounding regions) reduce the risk of fruit desiccation and produce 
higher levels of malic acid in the grapes, which increases total 
acidities and lowers pH values in the resulting wines. The nighttime 
fog lengthens the growing season by preventing temperatures from 
dropping significantly at night.
    The soils of the proposed SLO Coast AVA can be divided into four 
groups. The largest group, found in the north and central parts of the 
proposed AVA, is derived from the Franciscan Formation and is comprised 
of sandstone, shale, and metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. Examples of 
soil series in this group include Diablo, San Simeon, Shimmon, 
Conception, and Santa Lucia series. The second largest group consists 
of younger marine deposits and basin sediments from the Miocene and 
Pliocene periods. These soils are comprised of sandy loam and loams 
derived from marine deposits and include the Pismo, Briones, Tierrs, 
Gazos, Nacimiento, Linne, Balcom, and Sorrento soil series. These soils 
provide excellent drainage for vineyards, but may require irrigation 
during the growing season. The third group is derived from volcanic 
intrusion and represents a very small percentage of the soils within 
the proposed AVA. Most soils in this group are found on excessively 
steep slopes or rocky terrain that is unsuitable for viticulture. The 
final group is derived from wind deposits and comprises the sand dunes 
and low areas near the coast. These soils also cover a very small 
percent of the proposed AVA and are generally unsuitable for 
viticulture due to their excessive drainage and high sodium content.
    West of the proposed AVA is the Pacific Ocean. North of the 
proposed AVA, elevations rise over 3,000 feet in the steep, rough 
terrain of the Los Padres National Forest. To the northeast of the 
proposed AVA, GDD accumulations are higher and the region is classified 
as a Region II on the Winkler scale. Soils in this region are 
characterized by rocky outcrops and shallow soils derived from 
sandstone and metamorphic rock, as well as soils derived from igneous 
and granitic rocks.
    East of the proposed AVA is the eastern side of the Santa Lucia 
Range, which faces away from the Pacific Ocean and thus experience less 
marine influence than the proposed AVA. As a result, GDD accumulations 
are higher, falling within the Region II and III categories on the 
Winkler scale. Average minimum growing season temperatures are lower, 
and average maximum growing season temperatures are higher. Fog occurs 
less than 30 percent of all nights during the growing season. The soils 
to the east of the proposed AVA consist mainly of alluvial and terrace 
deposits.
    To the south of the proposed AVA is the Santa Maria Valley, which 
has a much flatter topography. GDD accumulations are higher than within 
the proposed AVA, and the region is characterized as Region II on the 
Winkler scale. Because the region has a flatter topography than the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA, the Santa Maria Valley is more exposed to the 
marine air. As a result, the Santa Maria Valley has higher average 
minimum growing season temperatures and lower average maximum growing 
season temperatures. Fog occurs over 55 percent of all nights during 
the growing season within the region to the south of the proposed AVA. 
Soils to the south of the proposed SLO Coast AVA consist of deep, 
fertile, sandy soils derived from alluvial deposits that contain less 
clay than the majority of soils within the proposed AVA.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received

    TTB published Notice No. 194 in the Federal Register on October 1, 
2020 (85 FR 61899), proposing to establish the SLO Coast AVA. In the 
notice, TTB summarized the evidence from the petition regarding the 
name, boundary, and distinguishing features for the proposed AVA. The 
notice also compared the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA to 
the surrounding areas. For a detailed description of the evidence 
relating to the name, boundary, and distinguishing features of the 
proposed AVA, and for a detailed comparison of the distinguishing 
features of the proposed AVA to the surrounding areas, see Notice No. 
194.
    In Notice No. 194, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the 
name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of 
the petition. In addition, given the proposed AVA's location within the 
central Coast AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence 
submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the 
proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the established AVA. 
TTB also requested comments on whether the geographic features of the 
proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the established Central Coast 
AVA that the proposed AVA should no longer be part of the established 
AVA. Finally, TTB requested comments on whether the proposed AVA is 
sufficiently distinguished from the established Edna Valley and Arroyo 
Grande Valley AVAs that it would encompass, as well as if one or both 
of the established AVAs are so distinct from the proposed SLO Coast AVA 
that it should not be included within the proposed AVA. The comment 
period closed November 30, 2020.
    In response to Notice No. 194, TTB received four comments. None of 
the comments opposed the establishment of the proposed SLO Coast AVA, 
but three of the comments expressed concerns or questions about the 
proposed AVA. Two comments inquired as to the economic

[[Page 13162]]

impact of AVAs. One comment asked if there could ``potentially be a 
negative economic impact on wineries with similar features that are 
unable to use the SLO name.'' A second comment asked if ``AVA wines'' 
are ``more lucrative and better for the economy'' and notes ``it would 
be interesting to study the cost of wines from an AVA versus the cost 
of wines not from AVAs, but still in the same region.'' TTB notes that 
establishment of an AVA is not a guarantee of economic benefit. Any 
economic benefit derived from the use of an AVA name on a wine label is 
a result of the efforts of the proprietor and the acceptance of the 
consumers of the new AVA. Therefore, TTB is not able to accurately 
predict the economic benefits any given winery or vineyard may 
experience as a result of the establishment of an AVA, nor can TTB 
predict if wineries and vineyards in one AVA will experience greater 
economic success than wineries and vineyards outside of that AVA. 
However, any person may petition TTB to establish a new AVA. 
Alternatively, a person may petition TTB to expand the boundaries of an 
established AVA to include previously omitted vineyards if they believe 
the expansion area has the same distinguishing features and name usage 
as the established AVA.
    The second comment also asked if any land in the proposed SLO Coast 
AVA is not currently within an AVA. TTB notes that all of the land 
within the proposed SLO Coast AVA is already within the established 
multi-county Central Coast AVA. Additionally, some of the land is 
within either the established Edna Valley or Arroyo Grande Valley AVAs.
    Additionally, the second comment asked the purpose of overlapping 
AVAs. TTB notes that a certain set of distinguishing features 
characterizes any given established AVA. All lands within that AVA are 
assumed to share those features. However, TTB also recognizes that 
small variations in soil, climate, and/or topography may exist within 
any established AVA, particularly large, multi-county AVAs like the 
Central Coast AVA in which the proposed SLO Coast AVA is located. At 
the time an AVA was originally established, the available data may have 
made the region appear largely homogenous, but over time, new data may 
become available that highlights these small differences. Establishing 
new AVAs within established AVAs provides formal recognition for these 
small differences while still acknowledging the broader characteristics 
these new AVAs share with the established one. For example, the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA shares the primary climate characteristic of the 
Central Coast AVA, which is a marine-influenced climate that is 
distinguishable from the climate of regions farther inland. As a 
result, vineyards in the proposed SLO Coast AVA and vineyards in the 
remaining portion of the Central Coast AVA will still have growing 
conditions that are more similar to each other than they are to the 
growing conditions in the warmer, drier inland regions east of the 
Central Coast AVA. However, the proposed SLO Coast AVA, by virtue of 
its location along the westernmost portion of the Central Coast AVA, 
receives more marine influence than the more inland regions of the 
Central Coast AVA. Vineyards in this more coastal region therefore 
experience slightly different growing conditions than vineyards 
elsewhere in the Central Coast AVA. Establishing a smaller AVA within 
the larger AVA also provides vintners with more flexibility in how they 
may choose to market their wines.
    The third comment specifically supported the proposed SLO Coast 
AVA. However, the comment also suggested that the overlap between the 
proposed SLO Coast AVA and the Central Coast, Edna Valley, and Arroyo 
Grande Valley AVAs may cause ``the potential for tax discrepancies.'' 
To avoid potential conflict, the comment suggested allowing vintners to 
vote on which AVA they wish to be located. The comment also recommended 
setting a timeline for businesses to adjust their business practices to 
being in a new AVA, noted suggestions for offsetting costs incurred 
when a winery switches from one AVA to another, and suggested forming a 
committee consisting of 2 to 3 members from each AVA to ``help lead the 
transition process'' from one AVA to another.
    TTB notes that the establishment of an AVA simply allows vintners a 
new way to market their wines and does not involve the creation of new 
taxes. Wine industry members' Federal excise tax payments are not based 
on the number of AVAs within which they are located. Additionally, 
including the Edna Valley and Arroyo Grande Valley AVAs in an 
established SLO Coast AVA, and including the SLO Coast AVA within the 
Central Coast AVA, would not force any label holders to make any 
changes to their business practices or impose on them any additional 
business costs. The Central Coast, Edna Valley, and Arroyo Grande 
Valley AVAs' boundaries would remain unchanged, and label holders may 
continue using ``Central Coast,'' ``Edna Valley,'' or ``Arroyo Grande 
Valley'' as appellations of origin on their wines. However, they would 
also have the option of using ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' or ``SLO 
Coast'' as an appellation of origin.
    In addition, because AVAs are established by Federal regulations, 
TTB publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking to inform potentially 
affected persons of the proposed AVA, similar to how other Federal 
agencies make known proposed changes to their regulations. The decision 
to establish the AVA or withdraw the proposal is based on the 
information included in the AVA petition and any additional relevant 
information that may be provided during the comment period. In this 
case, label holders had over a year to prepare for the potential 
creation of this AVA, as on October 1, 2020 TTB published an NPRM 
proposing the establishment of the ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' or ``SLO 
Coast'' AVA. Further, affected label holders had until November 30, 
2020 to submit comments on the proposed AVA.
    TTB also notes that the SLO Coast AVA Association already exists to 
promote the region and may choose to work with vintners and wineries to 
promote the region. However, TTB does not have the authority to order 
such cooperation or to establish any association or advisory group to 
promote one or more AVAs.
    A fourth comment supports establishment of the ``San Luis Obispo 
Coast'' or ``SLO Coast'' AVA. This comment notes distinguishing 
features within the proposed AVA's boundaries are different from areas 
outside these boundaries, and that establishing this AVA increases 
understanding of the diversity within San Luis Obispo County and the 
Central Coast AVA.

TTB Determination

    After careful review of the petition and the comments received in 
response to Notice No. 194, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the 
petitioner supports the establishment of the San Luis Obispo Coast (SLO 
Coast) AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 
1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the 
TTB regulations, TTB establishes the ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' AVA, 
also known as the ``SLO Coast' AVA, in San Luis Obispo County, 
California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this 
document.
    TTB has also determined that the SLO Coast AVA will remain part of 
the established Central Coast AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 194, the 
SLO Coast AVA shares the same marine-influenced climate as the Central 
Coast AVA. However, due to its smaller size

[[Page 13163]]

and more coastal location, the SLO Coast AVA experiences more marine 
influence than the more inland portions of the Central Coast AVA.
    Furthermore, TTB has determined that the Edna Valley and Arroyo 
Grande AVAs will be within the SLO Coast AVA. As discussed in Notice 
No. 194, the Edna Valley and Arroyo Grande Valley AVA share the marine-
influenced climate and clay and loam soils as the SLO Coast AVA. 
However, the Edna Valley AVA has some unique characteristics, such as a 
narrower range of elevations than the SLO Coast AVA. The climate of the 
Edna Valley AVA is also mostly Region II on the Winkler scale with 
pockets of Region I climate, whereas the SLO Coast AVA is primarily 
Region I with pockets of Region II climate. The Arroyo Grande Valley 
AVA also has some characteristics that make it unique. For example, the 
Arroyo Grande is in a sheltered location within the SLO Coast AVA, 
which means that it received less direct marine influence that other 
more open portions of the SLO Coast AVA.

Boundary Description

    See the narrative description of the boundary of the SLO Coast AVA 
in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.

Maps

    The petitioners provided the required maps, and they are listed 
below in the regulatory text. The SLO Coast AVA boundary may also be 
viewed 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 27 CFR 
4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name 
and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in 
compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain 
approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another 
reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have 
to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has 
a brand name containing an AVA name that was used as a brand name on a 
label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
    With the establishment of the San Luis Obispo Coast AVA, its name, 
``San Luis Obispo Coast,'' as well as the abbreviated ``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)). TTB is also 
designating ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' and ``SLO Coast'' as terms of 
viticultural significance. The text of the regulations clarifies this 
point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the names ``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, will have to 
ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an 
appellation of origin.
    The establishment of the SLO Coast AVA will not affect the existing 
Central Coast, Edna Valley, or Arroyo Grande Valley AVAs, and any 
bottlers using ``Central Coast,'' ``Edna Valley,'' or ``Arroyo Grande 
Valley'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made 
from grapes grown within those AVAs will not be affected by the 
establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the SLO Coast AVA 
will allow vintners to use ``SLO Coast,'' ``San Luis Obispo Coast,'' 
and ``Central Coast'' as appellations of origin for wines made 
primarily from grapes grown within the SLO Coast AVA if the wines meet 
the eligibility requirements for the appellation. Additionally, 
vintners may use ``SLO Coast'' or ``San Luis Obispo Coast'' as an 
appellation of origin in addition to or in place of ``Edna Valley'' or 
``Arroyo Grande Valley'' for wines made primarily from grapes grown in 
the Edna Valley or Arroyo Grande Valley AVAs if the wines meet the 
eligibility requirements for either of those two appellations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Executive Order 12866

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

Drafting Information

    Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted 
this final rule.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

    Wine.

The Regulatory Amendment

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

PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS

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

    Authority:  27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas

0
2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec.  9.282 to read as follows:


Sec.  9.282   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;

[[Page 13164]]

    (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-foot 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 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 northwestern-most 
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

[[Page 13165]]

    (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, returning to the beginning point.

    Signed: March 2, 2022.
Mary G. Ryan,
Administrator.

    Approved: March 2, 2022.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2022-05000 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P