Proposed Modification of the Boundaries of the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco Viticultural Areas, 43754-43759 [2020-14579]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43754
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(g) Required Actions
(1) Within 500 flight cycles (FCs) after the
effective date of this AD, perform a visual
inspection of the cushioned loop clamp (‘‘pclamp’’) to verify the p-clamp is undamaged
and installed.
(i) Thereafter, perform the visual
inspection required by (g)(1) of this AD at
intervals not to exceed 500 FCs since the last
inspection.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) If, during any visual inspection
required by paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(1)(i) of
this AD, the p-clamp is outside of the limits
in paragraph 3.B.(4) of GE GEnx-1B Service
Bulletin (SB) 73–0080 R01, dated August 29,
2019, or if the p-clamp is missing, perform
a spot fluorescent penetrant inspection of the
outer fuel manifold, part number (P/N)
2403M46G01 significant item number (SIN)
34302, using Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.B.(4)(b), of GE GEnx-1B SB 73–
0080 R01, dated August 29, 2019.
(i) If a crack or a sign of fuel leakage is
found, before further flight, remove the outer
fuel manifold, P/N 2403M46G01 SIN 34302,
from service and replace with a part eligible
for installation.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) Within 500 FCs after the effective date
of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 500 FCs from the last p-clamp
replacement, replace the p-clamp with a new
p-clamp. Complete this required action after
performing the visual inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(1)(i) of this AD.
(h) Definition
For the purpose of this AD, a p-clamp is
a clamp, P/N J1432P12 with SIN 34282,
located at the signal fuel tube hose, SIN
34200, as shown in Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3, Figure 1, ‘‘Outer
Fuel Manifold and Clamp Location,’’ of GE
GEnx-1B SB 73–0080 R01, dated August 29,
2019.
(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD,
if requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. You
may email your request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@
faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(j) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Mehdi Lamnyi, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Jul 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
Burlington MA 01803; phone: 781–238–7743;
fax: 781–238–7199; email: Mehdi.Lamnyi@
faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact General Electric Company,
1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215,
United States; phone: 513–552–3272; email:
aviation.fleetsupport@ae.ge.com; website:
www.ge.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA,
call 781–238–7759.
Issued on July 13, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–15381 Filed 7–17–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
You may electronically
submit comments to TTB on this
proposal, and view copies of this
document, its supporting materials, and
any comments TTB receives on it within
Docket No. TTB–2020–0007 as posted
on Regulations.gov (https://
www.regulations.gov), the Federal erulemaking portal. Please see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ section of this
document below for full details on how
to comment on this proposal via
Regulations.gov, U.S. mail, or hand
delivery, and for full details on how to
view or obtain copies of this document,
its supporting materials, and any
comments related to this proposal.
ADDRESSES:
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
27 CFR Part 9
TTB Authority
[Docket No. TTB–2020–0007; Notice No.
192]
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (FAA Act), 27
U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to prescribe regulations
for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits,
and malt beverages. The FAA Act
provides that these regulations should,
among other things, prohibit consumer
deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels and ensure that
labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity
and quality of the product. The Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The
Secretary has delegated various
authorities through Treasury Order 120–
01, dated December 10, 2013
(superseding Treasury Order 120–01,
dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB
Administrator to perform the functions
and duties in the administration and
enforcement of these provisions.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
part 4) authorizes TTB to establish
definitive viticultural areas and regulate
the use of their names as appellations of
origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth
standards for the preparation and
submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of
American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
RIN 1513–AC55
Proposed Modification of the
Boundaries of the Santa Lucia
Highlands and Arroyo Seco Viticultural
Areas
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
modify the boundaries of the ‘‘Santa
Lucia Highlands’’ viticultural area and
the adjacent ‘‘Arroyo Seco’’ viticultural
area in Monterey County, California.
The proposed boundary modifications
would remove approximately 376 acres
from the Santa Lucia Highlands
viticultural area and would also remove
148 acres from the Arroyo Seco
viticultural area and place them entirely
within the Santa Lucia Highlands
viticultural area. The proposed
viticultural areas and the proposed
modification areas are located entirely
within the established Monterey and
Central Coast viticultural areas. TTB
designates viticultural areas to allow
vintners to better describe the origin of
their wines and to allow consumers to
better identify wines they may
purchase. TTB invites comments on this
proposed addition to its regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 18, 2020.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines
a viticultural area for American wine as
a delimited grape-growing region having
distinguishing features, as described in
part 9 of the regulations, and a name
and a delineated boundary, as
established in part 9 of the regulations.
These designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality,
reputation, or other characteristic of a
wine made from grapes grown in an area
to the wine’s geographic origin. The
establishment of AVAs allows vintners
to describe more accurately the origin of
their wines to consumers and helps
consumers to identify wines they may
purchase. Establishment of an AVA is
neither an approval nor an endorsement
by TTB of the wine produced in that
area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines
the procedure for proposing an AVA
and provides that any interested party
may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as an AVA. Section 9.12
of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12)
prescribes the standards for petitions for
the establishment or modification of
AVAs. Petitions to modify an AVA must
include the following:
• In the case of an expansion in size
of an AVA, evidence that the proposed
expansion area is nationally or locally
known by the name of the AVA into
which it would be placed;
• In the case of a reduction in size of
an AVA, an explanation of the extent to
which the current AVA name does not
apply to the excluded area;
• An explanation of the basis for
defining the boundary of the proposed
areas to be realigned, including an
explanation of how the boundary of the
existing AVA was incorrectly or
incompletely defined or is no longer
accurate due to new evidence or
changed circumstances;
• In the case of an expansion of an
AVA, a narrative description of the
features of the proposed AVA affecting
viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation,
that make the proposed expansion area
similar to the AVA into which it would
be placed and distinguish it from
adjacent areas outside the established
AVA;
• In the case of a reduction of an
AVA, a narrative description of the
features of the proposed AVA affecting
viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation,
that differentiate the proposed reduction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Jul 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
area from the established AVA and
demonstrate a greater similarity to the
features of adjacent areas outside the
established AVA;
• The appropriate United States
Geological Survey (USGS) map(s)
showing the location of the proposed
AVA boundary modifications, with the
proposed boundary modifications
clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of
the proposed AVA boundary
modifications based on USGS map
markings.
Santa Lucia Highlands–Arroyo Seco
Boundary Modification Petition
TTB received a petition from Patrick
Shabram on behalf of the Santa Lucia
Highlands Wine Artisans, proposing to
modify the boundaries of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA (27 CFR 9.139)
and the adjacent Arroyo Seco AVA (27
CFR 9.59). The Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA are both
located within Monterey County,
California, and are both located entirely
within the established Monterey AVA
(27 CFR 9.98) and the Central Coast
AVA (27 CFR 9.75).
The petition contains two separate
boundary modification proposals. The
first proposal would remove
approximately 376 acres from the
northern part of the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA. The petition states that
the proposed reduction area is within
the floodplain of the Salinas River and
that no vineyards are planted or
proposed in this location. The land
removed from the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA would remain within
the Monterey AVA and the Central
Coast AVA.
The second proposed modification
affects a portion of the shared Santa
Lucia Highlands–Arroyo Seco AVA
boundary. The modification would
remove 148 acres of foothills terrain
from the western side of the Arroyo
Seco AVA and place them entirely
within the southeastern region of the
Santa Lucia Highlands. One vineyard
containing approximately 135 acres of
vines would be affected by this
boundary realignment, and the vineyard
owner included a letter of support in the
petition. The modification would
reduce the size of the Arroyo Seco AVA
by less than 1 percent and would not
have any impact on the boundaries of
the Monterey AVA or the Central Coast
AVA.
Santa Lucia Highlands Reduction
Boundary Evidence
The current northeastern boundary of
the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA follows
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43755
the 100-foot elevation contour
southeasterly from its intersection with
Limekiln Creek to its intersection with
the Salinas River. The boundary then
proceeds along the west bank of the
Salinas River to its intersection with the
120-foot elevation, where the boundary
then turns southeast to briefly follow
the 120-foot elevation before jumping to
the 160-foot elevation contour. The
boundary then follows the 160-foot
elevation contour to its intersection
with River Road.
The proposed modification to the
northeastern boundary of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA would move the
beginning point of the boundary to the
intersection of Limekiln Creek and the
120-foot elevation contour. The
boundary would then follow the 120foot elevation contour southeasterly to
River Road, where it would then
proceed southeasterly along River Road
to an unnamed, unimproved road. From
there, the boundary would proceed
southeast in a straight line to the
terminus of the 110-foot elevation
contour, then proceed southeast in a
straight line to the Salinas River. The
boundary would then follow the Salinas
River southeast to the 120-foot elevation
contour. From that point, the boundary
would follow the contour to River Road
and then follow the road to the 160-foot
elevation contour. At this point, the
proposed boundary would rejoin the
current boundary. The result would be
the elimination of most of the Salinas
River floodplains from the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA.
Name Evidence
The Santa Lucia Highlands AVA,
established by T.D. ATF–321 on May
15, 1992 (57 FR 20764), is named for the
Santa Lucia Mountain Range, and is
located on the eastern edge of these
mountains, in the lower elevations of
the Sierra de Salinas. T.D. ATF–321
shows the AVA partly derives its name
from the Santa Lucia Range’s elevation,
noting trade and general publications
that reference viticulture ‘‘in the Santa
Lucia Highlands overlooking Soledad
and Salinas Valley.’’
While currently within the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA, the petition
illustrates the topography in the
proposed reduction area is inconsistent
with the elevations of the Santa Lucia
Range from which the ‘‘Santa Lucia
AVA’’ partly derives its name. The
petition provides evidence showing the
proposed reduction area includes
sections of the Salinas River floodplain
that have essentially-flat elevations with
little-to-no slope. Therefore, the petition
shows the current ‘‘Santa Lucia
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
43756
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Highlands AVA’’ name is ill-suited for
the proposed reduction area.
Comparison of the Proposed Reduction
Area to the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA
According to T.D. ATF–321, the
distinguishing features of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA are its
topography, climate, and soils. The
boundary modification petition states
that while the proposed reduction area’s
climate is similar to the climate of the
rest of the AVA, its topography and soils
are more similar to the topography and
soils of the adjacent region outside of
the AVA.
Topography
The boundary modification petition
states that the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA is located on a series of alluvial
fans and terraces. Slope angles within
the AVA range from 5 to 30 percent,
although most of the terraces have slope
angles of 5 to 20 percent. The slopes are
predominately oriented to the east. The
petition states that east-facing slopes
expose the vineyards to the cooler
morning sun and offer greater solar
exposure, compared to west-facing
slopes which are exposed to warmer
afternoon sun and receive less solar
exposure. Furthermore, an eastern
exposure allows for fog to burn off early
in the morning. The petition also states
that the gentle slope angles reduce the
risk of frost in the vineyards by allowing
cool night air to drain off the vineyards
and into the lower, flatter elevations.
According to the petition, the
proposed reduction area is on the
Salinas Valley floor within the
floodplain of the Salinas River. The
reduction area has little-to-no slope and
lacks the clear easterly orientation of the
rest of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
It is also not on an alluvial fan or
terrace. The petition included a map of
the slope angles within the AVA and in
the adjacent regions outside the AVA, as
well as photographs of the proposed
reduction area and the surrounding
regions. The slope angle map and the
photographs show that the proposed
reduction area is essentially flat, similar
to the Salinas River valley floor outside
the AVA, while the terrain within the
AVA is noticeably elevated.
Soils
The soils of the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA are predominately
Chualar loams, which make up almost
32 percent of the soils within the AVA.
These soils are described as very deep,
well-drained soils formed in alluvial
material from mixed rock sources. The
petition also states that Xerorthent soils
are also common within the AVA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Jul 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
Xerorthents are described as a subgroup
of Entisols soils common to arid and
semi-arid landscapes. Just over 17
percent of the AVA contains soils of this
subgroup. The soils of the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA provide good drainage
for vineyards.
By contrast, the petition states that the
soils in the proposed reduction area are
mostly Psamments and Fluvents. These
are suborders of Entisols that are sandy
and have little organic material. The
petition included a map of the location
of Psamments and Fluvents within the
Santa Lucia Highlands and the region
outside the AVA. The maps shows that
these soils are primarily found along the
Salinas River’s immediate floodplain
and the river’s channel, which is
outside the AVA. The soils represent a
little over 0.7 percent of the acreage of
the soils of the AVA.
Santa Lucia Highlands–Arroyo Seco
Boundary Realignment
The boundary modification petition
also proposed to realign a portion of the
shared Santa Lucia Highlands–Arroyo
Seco AVA boundary. The proposed
realignment would remove
approximately 148 acres from the
Arroyo Seco AVA and place them
entirely within the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA.
Boundary Evidence
The petition proposes to realign the
segment of the shared Santa Lucia
Highlands–Arroyo Seco boundary
located along Paraiso Road. The current
boundary follows Paraiso Road south
from its intersection with Foothill Road
to its intersection with Clark Road. The
boundary then proceeds east along Clark
Road to an unnamed, light-duty road
and then follows a straight line
southeasterly to the southeast corner of
Section 33.
The proposed realigned boundary
would follow Paraiso Road south from
its intersection with Foothill Road to its
intersection with an unnamed road
north of Clark Road. The boundary
would then follow the unnamed road
southeasterly to an intermittent stream.
From this point, the boundary would
follow the stream southwesterly to the
western boundary of Section 21 and
then proceed in a straight line
southwest to the intersection of Clark
Road and to the southern boundary of
Section 21. The boundary would then
follow Clark Road southwesterly to an
unnamed, light-duty road, where the
realigned boundary would rejoin the
current boundary. The realignment
would remove an alluvial terrace from
the Arroyo Seco AVA and place it
within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Name Evidence
The Arroyo Seco AVA, which was
established by T.D. ATF–131 on April
15, 1983 (48 FR 16246), derives its name
from both the Arroyo Seco land grant
and the Arroyo Seco Creek. The Santa
Lucia Highlands, established by T.D.
ATF–321 on May 15, 1992 (57 FR
20764), was named for the Santa Lucia
Range. The Santa Lucia Highlands AVA
is located on the eastern edge of this
mountain range, in the lower elevations
of the Sierra de Salinas.
The proposed realignment area is
currently within the Arroyo Seco AVA.
The boundary modification petition
states that the proposed realignment
area is not within the Arroyo Seco land
grant, nor does the Arroyo Seco Creek
run through it. The petition notes that
the proposed realignment area
‘‘occupies a highland position
consistent with the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA.’’ Therefore, the
petition claims that the current ‘‘Arroyo
Seco’’ name is less suited for the
proposed realignment area than the
‘‘Santa Lucia Highlands’’ name.
Comparison of the Proposed
Realignment Area to the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA and the Arroyo Seco
AVA
Topography and soils are
distinguishing features of both the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA and the Arroyo
Seco AVA. The boundary modification
petition states that the topography and
soils of the proposed realignment area
are more similar to those of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA than to the
topography and soils of the Arroyo Seco
AVA.
Topography
As stated previously, the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA is comprised of gently
sloping alluvial fans and terraces. The
Arroyo Seco AVA, as described in T.D.
ATF–131, is comprised of sloping bench
land surrounding the Arroyo Seco
Creek. The boundary modification
petition also notes that the Arroyo Seco
AVA contains the watershed of the
Arroyo Seco Creek.
The proposed realignment area is
located on an alluvial fan. According to
the boundary modification petition, the
proposed realignment area has an
eastern orientation and slope angles
above 5 percent. By contrast, the land
within the Arroyo Seco AVA that is
immediately adjacent to the proposed
realignment area has a more gradual
slope, becoming nearly flat and lacking
an eastern orientation. The petition
states that the topographical
characteristics of the proposed
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
realignment area are more consistent
with those of the Santa Lucia Highlands
than the topography of the Arroyo Seco
AVA and would justify moving this
region from the Arroyo Seco AVA into
the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
Soils
As stated previously, the prominent
soil of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA
is the Chualar series. The boundary
modification petition also notes that
Placentia sandy loam soils are also
present and comprise 5.3 percent of the
soils within the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA. The petition states that the
principal soil series of the Arroyo Seco
AVA are Mocho, Lockwood, Arroyo
Seco, Rincon, and Chualar, with
Chualar and Arroyo Seco being the most
common soil types. Placentia soils are
present only in very small amounts in
limited areas within the Arroyo Seco
AVA.
The petition states that the soil of the
proposed realignment area is comprised
of Placentia sandy loam, Chualar, and
Arroyo Seco soils. Although all three
soil series are found in both the Arroyo
Seco AVA and the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA, Placentia soils are not
common in the Arroyo Seco AVA
except within the proposed realignment
area. The petition states that the
combination of Placentia, Chualar, and
Arroyo Seco soils is more common
within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
Therefore, the petition claims that
moving the proposed realignment area
into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA
would enhance the boundary integrity
of both AVAs.
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to
modify the boundaries of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA and the Arroyo
Seco AVA merits consideration and
public comment, as invited in this
notice of proposed rulemaking.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of the
boundary of the petitioned-for AVA
boundary modifications in the proposed
regulatory text published at the end of
this proposed rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required
maps, and they are listed below in the
proposed regulatory text. You may also
view the proposed boundary
modifications for the Santa Lucia
Highlands and Arroyo Seco AVAs on
the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB
website, at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/
ava-map-explorer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Jul 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits
any label reference on a wine that
indicates or implies an origin other than
the wine’s true place of origin. For a
wine to be labeled with an AVA name,
at least 85 percent of the wine must be
derived from grapes grown within the
area represented by that name, and the
wine must meet the other conditions
listed in § 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
§ 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27
CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB approves the proposed removal
of land from the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA, wines produced primarily from
grapes grown in the removal area would
no longer be eligible to be labeled with
‘‘Santa Lucia Highlands’’ as an
appellation of origin. Consequently,
wine bottlers using the name ‘‘Santa
Lucia Highlands’’ in a brand name,
including a trademark, or in another
label reference as to the origin of the
wine, would have to ensure that the
product is eligible to use the AVA name
as an appellation of origin under the
proposed new boundary of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA if this proposed
rule is adopted as a final rule. TTB does
not anticipate that the proposed removal
of land will affect any current labels
because the petition indicates there are
no vineyards currently planted or
planned within the proposed reduction
area.
If TTB approved the proposed
realignment of the shared Santa Lucia
Highlands–Arroyo Seco AVA boundary,
the realignment area would be moved
from the Arroyo Seco AVA into the
Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. Wines
produced primarily from grapes grown
in the realignment area would no longer
be eligible to be labeled with ‘‘Arroyo
Seco’’ as an appellation of origin.
Consequently, wine bottlers using the
name ‘‘Arroyo Seco’’ in a brand name,
including a trademark, or in another
label reference as to the origin of the
wine, would have to ensure that the
product is eligible to use the AVA name
as an appellation of origin under the
proposed new boundary of the Arroyo
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43757
Seco AVA if this proposed rule is
adopted as a final rule. However, if the
proposed realignment is approved,
wines produced primarily from grapes
grown in the realignment area would be
eligible to be labeled with ‘‘Santa Lucia
Highlands’’ as an appellation of origin.
The petition included a letter of support
for the proposed realignment from the
only vineyard owner located within the
proposed realignment area.
The approval of the proposed
boundary realignments would not affect
the Monterey AVA or the Central Coast
AVA. Bottlers using ‘‘Monterey’’ or
‘‘Central Coast’’ as an appellation of
origin or in a brand name for wines
made from grapes grown within the
proposed removal area or the proposed
realignment area would not be affected
by these boundary modifications. The
proposed reduction of the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA boundary would allow
vintners to continue using ‘‘Monterey’’
and ‘‘Central Coast’’ as appellations of
origin for wines made from grapes
grown within the proposed reduction
area if the wines meet the eligibility
requirements for the appellation.
Additionally, the proposed realignment
of the shared Santa Lucia Highlands–
Arroyo Seco AVA boundary would
allow vintners to use ‘‘Santa Lucia
Highlands’’ as well as ‘‘Central Coast’’
and ‘‘Monterey’’ as appellations of
origin for wines made from grapes
grown within proposed realignment
area if the wines meet the eligibility
requirements for the appellation.
Transition Period
If the proposal to realign the shared
Santa Lucia Highlands–Arroyo Seco
AVA boundary is approved, a transition
rule will apply to labels for wines
produced from grapes grown in the area
removed from the Arroyo Seco AVA and
placed into the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA (the ‘‘proposed realignment area’’).
A label containing the words ‘‘Arroyo
Seco’’ may be used on wine bottled
within two years from the effective date
of the final rule, provided that such
label was approved before the effective
date of the final rule and that the wine
conforms to the standards for use of the
label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i)
in effect prior to the final rule. At the
end of this two-year transition period, if
the wine is produced primarily from
grapes grown in the proposed
realignment area, then a label
containing the words ‘‘Arroyo Seco’’ in
the brand name or as an appellation of
origin would not be permitted on the
label. TTB believes that the two-year
transition period should provide
affected label holders with adequate
time to use up any old labels. This
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
43758
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
transition period is described in the
regulatory text of this proposed rule.
TTB notes that wine made primarily
from grapes grown in the proposed
realignment area would be eligible to be
labeled with ‘‘Santa Lucia Highlands’’
as an appellation of origin upon the
effective date of the final rule. Finally,
TTB is not proposing a similar
transition period for wines labeled with
‘‘Santa Lucia Highlands’’ that are
produced primarily from grapes grown
in the area proposed to be removed from
the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA,
because the petition states that there are
no current or planned vineyards within
the proposed removal area.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested
members of the public on whether it
should modify the boundaries of the
Santa Lucia Highlands AVA and the
Arroyo Seco AVA as proposed. TTB is
also interested in receiving comments
on the sufficiency and accuracy of the
information submitted in support of the
petition. Please provide any available
specific information in support of your
comments.
TTB also encourages comments from
industry members with wine labels
potentially affected by the proposed
realignment of land from the Arroyo
Seco AVA into the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA. If a commenter
believes that a conflict will arise, the
comment should describe the nature of
that conflict, including any anticipated
negative economic impact that approval
of the proposed AVA will have on an
existing viticultural enterprise. TTB is
also interested in receiving suggestions
for ways to avoid conflicts, for example,
by adopting a modified or different
boundary for either AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this
notice by using one of the following
methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You
may send comments via the online
comment form posted with this notice
within Docket No. TTB–2020–0007 on
‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal erulemaking portal, at https://
www.regulations.gov. A direct link to
that docket is available under Notice
No. 192 on the TTB website at https://
www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Jul 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
• U.S. Mail: You may send comments
via postal mail to the Director,
Regulations and Rulings Division,
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12,
Washington, DC 20005.
Please submit your comments by the
closing date shown above in this notice.
Your comments must reference Notice
No. 192 and include your name and
mailing address. Your comments also
must be made in English, be legible, and
be written in language acceptable for
public disclosure. TTB does not
acknowledge receipt of comments, and
TTB considers all comments as
originals.
In your comment, please clearly state
if you are commenting for yourself or on
behalf of an association, business, or
other entity. If you are commenting on
behalf of an entity, your comment must
include the entity’s name, as well as
your name and position title. If you
comment via Regulations.gov, please
enter the entity’s name in the
‘‘Organization’’ blank of the online
comment form. If you comment via
postal mail or hand delivery/courier,
please submit your entity’s comment on
letterhead.
You may also write to the
Administrator before the comment
closing date to ask for a public hearing.
The Administrator reserves the right to
determine whether to hold a public
hearing.
Confidentiality
All submitted comments and
attachments are part of the public record
and subject to disclosure. Do not
enclose any material in your comments
that you consider to be confidential or
inappropriate for public disclosure.
Public Disclosure
TTB will post, and you may view,
copies of this notice, selected
supporting materials, and any online or
mailed comments received about this
proposal within Docket No. TTB–2020–
0007 on the Federal e-rulemaking
portal, Regulations.gov, at https://
www.regulations.gov. A direct link to
that docket is available on the TTB
website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/
wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice
No. 192. You may also reach the
relevant docket through the
Regulations.gov search page at https://
www.regulations.gov. For information
on how to use Regulations.gov, click on
the site’s ‘‘Help’’ tab.
All posted comments will display the
commenter’s name, organization (if
any), city, and State, and, in the case of
mailed comments, all address
information, including email addresses.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TTB may omit voluminous attachments
or material that the Bureau considers
unsuitable for posting.
You may also obtain copies of this
proposed rule, all related petitions,
maps and other supporting materials,
and any electronic or mailed comments
that TTB receives about this proposal at
20 cents per 8.5 x 11-inch page. Please
note that TTB is unable to provide
copies of USGS maps or any similarlysized documents that may be included
as part of the AVA petition. Contact
TTB’s Regulations and Rulings Division
by email using the web form at https://
www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by
telephone at 202–453–1039, ext. 175, to
request copies of comments or other
materials.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed
regulation, if adopted, would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The proposed regulation imposes no
new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of a viticultural
area name would be the result of a
proprietor’s efforts and consumer
acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this
proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory
assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations
and Rulings Division drafted this notice
of proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB proposes to amend title
27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Section 9.59 is amended by
removing paragraphs (c)(12) and (13),
redesignating paragraphs (c)(14) through
■
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 139 / Monday, July 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(21) as paragraphs (c)(17) through (24),
and adding new paragraphs (c)(12)
through (16) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 9.59
Arroyo Seco.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(12) Then south following Paraiso
Road to its intersection with an
unnamed, light-duty road north of Clark
Road in Section 20, T18S/R6E;
(13) Then east-southeast along the
unnamed road for 0.3 mile to its
intersection with an intermittent stream;
(14) Then southwesterly along the
intermittent stream for 0.2 mile to its
intersection with the western boundary
of Section 21, T18S/R6E;
(15) Then south-southwest in a
straight line for approximately 0.3 mile
to the intersection of Clark Road and the
southern boundary of Section 21, T18S/
R6E;
(16) Then west-southwest along Clark
Road for 0.2 mile to its intersection with
an unnamed, light-duty road;
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Transition period. A label
containing the words ‘‘Arroyo Seco’’ in
the brand name or as an appellation of
origin approved prior to [EFFECTIVE
DATE] may be used on wine bottled
before [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE], if the wine
conforms to the standards for use of the
label set forth in § 4.25 or § 4.39(i) of
this chapter in effect prior to
[EFFECTIVE DATE].
■ 3. Section 9.139 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (c)(10) through
(22) as paragraphs (c)(18) through (30),
revising paragraphs (c)(1) through (9),
and adding new paragraphs (c)(10)
through (17).
The revisions/additions read as
follows:
§ 9.139
Santa Lucia Highlands.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) From the beginning point, the
boundary follows Limekiln Creek for
approximately 1.2 miles northeast to the
120-foot elevation contour.
(2) Then following the 120-foot
elevation contour in a general
southeasterly direction for
approximately 0.9 mile to where it
intersects with River Road.
(3) Then following River Road in a
southeasterly direction for 0.3 mile to its
intersection with an unimproved road
near the marked 130-foot elevation.
(4) Then follow a straight line
southeast to the terminus of the 110-foot
elevation contour.
(5) Then follow a straight line
southeast 0.9 mile, crossing onto the
Gonzales map, to the Salinas River.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:03 Jul 17, 2020
Jkt 250001
(6) Then follow the Salinas River in
a south-southeast direction 0.7 mile,
crossing onto the Palo Escrito map, to
the intersection of the Salinas River and
the 120-foot elevation contour.
(7) Then follow the 120-foot contour
south for 1 mile, then southeast to its
intersection with River Road.
(8) Then follow River Road east for
0.1 mile to its intersection with an
unnamed, light-duty road.
(9) Then follow the unnamed road
southeast for 0.2 mile to its intersection
with the 160-foot elevation contour.
(10) Then follow the 160-foot
elevation contour southeasterly for
approximately 5.9 miles to its
intersection with River Road.
(11) Then follow River Road
southeasterly for approximately 1 mile
to the intersection of River, Fort Romie,
and Foothill Roads.
(12) Then following Foothill Road in
a southeasterly direction for
approximately 4 miles to the junction of
Foothill Road and Paraiso Roads on the
Soledad map.
(13) Then follow Paraiso Road in a
southerly direction, crossing onto the
Paraiso Springs map, to its intersection
with an unnamed, light-duty road north
of Clark Road in Section 20, T18S/R6E.
(14) Then follow the unnamed road
east-southeast for 0.3 mile to its
intersection with an intermittent stream.
(15) Then follow the intermittent
stream in a southwesterly direction for
0.2 mile to its intersection with the
western boundary of Section 21, T18S/
R6E.
(16) Then follow a straight line southsouthwest for 0.3 mile to the
intersection of Clark Road and the
southern boundary of Section 21, T18S/
R6E.
(17) Then follow Clark Road westsouthwest for 0.2 mile to its intersection
with an unnamed, light-duty road.
*
*
*
*
*
Signed: March 10, 2020.
Mary G. Ryan,
Acting Administrator.
Approved: June 2, 2020.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2020–14579 Filed 7–17–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43759
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 943
[SATS No. TX–071–FOR; Docket ID: OSM–
2019–0011; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000
201S180110; S2D2S SS08011000
SX064A000 20XS501520]
Texas Abandoned Mine Land
Reclamation Plan
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment
period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
AGENCY:
We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a
proposed amendment to the Texas
Abandoned Mine Land Plan
(hereinafter, the Plan) under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Texas
proposes revisions to its Plan to allow
its AML program to receive limited
liability protection for certain non-coal
reclamation projects. Texas intends to
revise its Plan in order to meet the
requirements of SMCRA and the
implementing Federal regulations. This
document gives the times and locations
where the Texas Plan and this proposed
amendment to that Plan are available for
your inspection, establishes the
comment period during which you may
submit written comments on the
amendment, and describes the
procedures that we will follow for the
public hearing, if one is requested.
DATES: We will accept written
comments on this amendment until 4:00
p.m., CST, August 19, 2020. If
requested, we will hold a public hearing
on the amendment on August 14, 2020.
We will accept requests to speak at a
hearing until 4:00 p.m., CST on August
4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by SATS No. TX–071–FOR,
by any of the following methods:
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Joseph R.
Maki, Director, Tulsa Field Office,
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, 1645 South 101st East
Avenue, Suite 145, Tulsa, Oklahoma
74128–4629.
• Fax: (918) 581–6419.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: The
amendment has been assigned Docket
ID OSM–2019–0011. If you would like
to submit comments go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM
20JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43754-43759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14579]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2020-0007; Notice No. 192]
RIN 1513-AC55
Proposed Modification of the Boundaries of the Santa Lucia
Highlands and Arroyo Seco Viticultural Areas
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to
modify the boundaries of the ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' viticultural
area and the adjacent ``Arroyo Seco'' viticultural area in Monterey
County, California. The proposed boundary modifications would remove
approximately 376 acres from the Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural
area and would also remove 148 acres from the Arroyo Seco viticultural
area and place them entirely within the Santa Lucia Highlands
viticultural area. The proposed viticultural areas and the proposed
modification areas are located entirely within the established Monterey
and Central Coast viticultural areas. TTB designates viticultural areas
to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to
allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. TTB invites
comments on this proposed addition to its regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 18, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may electronically submit comments to TTB on this
proposal, and view copies of this document, its supporting materials,
and any comments TTB receives on it within Docket No. TTB-2020-0007 as
posted on Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov), the Federal e-
rulemaking portal. Please see the ``Public Participation'' section of
this document below for full details on how to comment on this proposal
via Regulations.gov, U.S. mail, or hand delivery, and for full details
on how to view or obtain copies of this document, its supporting
materials, and any comments related to this proposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G
Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act
pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various
authorities through Treasury Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013
(superseding Treasury Order 120-01, dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB
Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration
and enforcement of these provisions.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to
establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and
lists the approved AVAs.
[[Page 43755]]
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9
of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as
established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow
vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or
other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the
wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to
describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and
helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of
an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine
produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2))
outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any
interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes
the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of
AVAs. Petitions to modify an AVA must include the following:
In the case of an expansion in size of an AVA, evidence
that the proposed expansion area is nationally or locally known by the
name of the AVA into which it would be placed;
In the case of a reduction in size of an AVA, an
explanation of the extent to which the current AVA name does not apply
to the excluded area;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the proposed areas to be realigned, including an explanation of how the
boundary of the existing AVA was incorrectly or incompletely defined or
is no longer accurate due to new evidence or changed circumstances;
In the case of an expansion of an AVA, a narrative
description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture,
such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that
make the proposed expansion area similar to the AVA into which it would
be placed and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the
established AVA;
In the case of a reduction of an AVA, a narrative
description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture,
such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that
differentiate the proposed reduction area from the established AVA and
demonstrate a greater similarity to the features of adjacent areas
outside the established AVA;
The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS)
map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA boundary modifications,
with the proposed boundary modifications clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA
boundary modifications based on USGS map markings.
Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco Boundary Modification Petition
TTB received a petition from Patrick Shabram on behalf of the Santa
Lucia Highlands Wine Artisans, proposing to modify the boundaries of
the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA (27 CFR 9.139) and the adjacent Arroyo
Seco AVA (27 CFR 9.59). The Santa Lucia Highlands AVA and the Arroyo
Seco AVA are both located within Monterey County, California, and are
both located entirely within the established Monterey AVA (27 CFR 9.98)
and the Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75).
The petition contains two separate boundary modification proposals.
The first proposal would remove approximately 376 acres from the
northern part of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. The petition states
that the proposed reduction area is within the floodplain of the
Salinas River and that no vineyards are planted or proposed in this
location. The land removed from the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA would
remain within the Monterey AVA and the Central Coast AVA.
The second proposed modification affects a portion of the shared
Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco AVA boundary. The modification would
remove 148 acres of foothills terrain from the western side of the
Arroyo Seco AVA and place them entirely within the southeastern region
of the Santa Lucia Highlands. One vineyard containing approximately 135
acres of vines would be affected by this boundary realignment, and the
vineyard owner included a letter of support in the petition. The
modification would reduce the size of the Arroyo Seco AVA by less than
1 percent and would not have any impact on the boundaries of the
Monterey AVA or the Central Coast AVA.
Santa Lucia Highlands Reduction
Boundary Evidence
The current northeastern boundary of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA
follows the 100-foot elevation contour southeasterly from its
intersection with Limekiln Creek to its intersection with the Salinas
River. The boundary then proceeds along the west bank of the Salinas
River to its intersection with the 120-foot elevation, where the
boundary then turns southeast to briefly follow the 120-foot elevation
before jumping to the 160-foot elevation contour. The boundary then
follows the 160-foot elevation contour to its intersection with River
Road.
The proposed modification to the northeastern boundary of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA would move the beginning point of the boundary to
the intersection of Limekiln Creek and the 120-foot elevation contour.
The boundary would then follow the 120-foot elevation contour
southeasterly to River Road, where it would then proceed southeasterly
along River Road to an unnamed, unimproved road. From there, the
boundary would proceed southeast in a straight line to the terminus of
the 110-foot elevation contour, then proceed southeast in a straight
line to the Salinas River. The boundary would then follow the Salinas
River southeast to the 120-foot elevation contour. From that point, the
boundary would follow the contour to River Road and then follow the
road to the 160-foot elevation contour. At this point, the proposed
boundary would rejoin the current boundary. The result would be the
elimination of most of the Salinas River floodplains from the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA.
Name Evidence
The Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, established by T.D. ATF-321 on May
15, 1992 (57 FR 20764), is named for the Santa Lucia Mountain Range,
and is located on the eastern edge of these mountains, in the lower
elevations of the Sierra de Salinas. T.D. ATF-321 shows the AVA partly
derives its name from the Santa Lucia Range's elevation, noting trade
and general publications that reference viticulture ``in the Santa
Lucia Highlands overlooking Soledad and Salinas Valley.''
While currently within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, the petition
illustrates the topography in the proposed reduction area is
inconsistent with the elevations of the Santa Lucia Range from which
the ``Santa Lucia AVA'' partly derives its name. The petition provides
evidence showing the proposed reduction area includes sections of the
Salinas River floodplain that have essentially-flat elevations with
little-to-no slope. Therefore, the petition shows the current ``Santa
Lucia
[[Page 43756]]
Highlands AVA'' name is ill-suited for the proposed reduction area.
Comparison of the Proposed Reduction Area to the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA
According to T.D. ATF-321, the distinguishing features of the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA are its topography, climate, and soils. The
boundary modification petition states that while the proposed reduction
area's climate is similar to the climate of the rest of the AVA, its
topography and soils are more similar to the topography and soils of
the adjacent region outside of the AVA.
Topography
The boundary modification petition states that the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA is located on a series of alluvial fans and terraces.
Slope angles within the AVA range from 5 to 30 percent, although most
of the terraces have slope angles of 5 to 20 percent. The slopes are
predominately oriented to the east. The petition states that east-
facing slopes expose the vineyards to the cooler morning sun and offer
greater solar exposure, compared to west-facing slopes which are
exposed to warmer afternoon sun and receive less solar exposure.
Furthermore, an eastern exposure allows for fog to burn off early in
the morning. The petition also states that the gentle slope angles
reduce the risk of frost in the vineyards by allowing cool night air to
drain off the vineyards and into the lower, flatter elevations.
According to the petition, the proposed reduction area is on the
Salinas Valley floor within the floodplain of the Salinas River. The
reduction area has little-to-no slope and lacks the clear easterly
orientation of the rest of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. It is also
not on an alluvial fan or terrace. The petition included a map of the
slope angles within the AVA and in the adjacent regions outside the
AVA, as well as photographs of the proposed reduction area and the
surrounding regions. The slope angle map and the photographs show that
the proposed reduction area is essentially flat, similar to the Salinas
River valley floor outside the AVA, while the terrain within the AVA is
noticeably elevated.
Soils
The soils of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA are predominately
Chualar loams, which make up almost 32 percent of the soils within the
AVA. These soils are described as very deep, well-drained soils formed
in alluvial material from mixed rock sources. The petition also states
that Xerorthent soils are also common within the AVA. Xerorthents are
described as a subgroup of Entisols soils common to arid and semi-arid
landscapes. Just over 17 percent of the AVA contains soils of this
subgroup. The soils of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA provide good
drainage for vineyards.
By contrast, the petition states that the soils in the proposed
reduction area are mostly Psamments and Fluvents. These are suborders
of Entisols that are sandy and have little organic material. The
petition included a map of the location of Psamments and Fluvents
within the Santa Lucia Highlands and the region outside the AVA. The
maps shows that these soils are primarily found along the Salinas
River's immediate floodplain and the river's channel, which is outside
the AVA. The soils represent a little over 0.7 percent of the acreage
of the soils of the AVA.
Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco Boundary Realignment
The boundary modification petition also proposed to realign a
portion of the shared Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco AVA boundary.
The proposed realignment would remove approximately 148 acres from the
Arroyo Seco AVA and place them entirely within the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA.
Boundary Evidence
The petition proposes to realign the segment of the shared Santa
Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco boundary located along Paraiso Road. The
current boundary follows Paraiso Road south from its intersection with
Foothill Road to its intersection with Clark Road. The boundary then
proceeds east along Clark Road to an unnamed, light-duty road and then
follows a straight line southeasterly to the southeast corner of
Section 33.
The proposed realigned boundary would follow Paraiso Road south
from its intersection with Foothill Road to its intersection with an
unnamed road north of Clark Road. The boundary would then follow the
unnamed road southeasterly to an intermittent stream. From this point,
the boundary would follow the stream southwesterly to the western
boundary of Section 21 and then proceed in a straight line southwest to
the intersection of Clark Road and to the southern boundary of Section
21. The boundary would then follow Clark Road southwesterly to an
unnamed, light-duty road, where the realigned boundary would rejoin the
current boundary. The realignment would remove an alluvial terrace from
the Arroyo Seco AVA and place it within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
Name Evidence
The Arroyo Seco AVA, which was established by T.D. ATF-131 on April
15, 1983 (48 FR 16246), derives its name from both the Arroyo Seco land
grant and the Arroyo Seco Creek. The Santa Lucia Highlands, established
by T.D. ATF-321 on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20764), was named for the Santa
Lucia Range. The Santa Lucia Highlands AVA is located on the eastern
edge of this mountain range, in the lower elevations of the Sierra de
Salinas.
The proposed realignment area is currently within the Arroyo Seco
AVA. The boundary modification petition states that the proposed
realignment area is not within the Arroyo Seco land grant, nor does the
Arroyo Seco Creek run through it. The petition notes that the proposed
realignment area ``occupies a highland position consistent with the
Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.'' Therefore, the petition claims that the
current ``Arroyo Seco'' name is less suited for the proposed
realignment area than the ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' name.
Comparison of the Proposed Realignment Area to the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA
Topography and soils are distinguishing features of both the Santa
Lucia Highlands AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA. The boundary modification
petition states that the topography and soils of the proposed
realignment area are more similar to those of the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA than to the topography and soils of the Arroyo Seco AVA.
Topography
As stated previously, the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA is comprised of
gently sloping alluvial fans and terraces. The Arroyo Seco AVA, as
described in T.D. ATF-131, is comprised of sloping bench land
surrounding the Arroyo Seco Creek. The boundary modification petition
also notes that the Arroyo Seco AVA contains the watershed of the
Arroyo Seco Creek.
The proposed realignment area is located on an alluvial fan.
According to the boundary modification petition, the proposed
realignment area has an eastern orientation and slope angles above 5
percent. By contrast, the land within the Arroyo Seco AVA that is
immediately adjacent to the proposed realignment area has a more
gradual slope, becoming nearly flat and lacking an eastern orientation.
The petition states that the topographical characteristics of the
proposed
[[Page 43757]]
realignment area are more consistent with those of the Santa Lucia
Highlands than the topography of the Arroyo Seco AVA and would justify
moving this region from the Arroyo Seco AVA into the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA.
Soils
As stated previously, the prominent soil of the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA is the Chualar series. The boundary modification petition
also notes that Placentia sandy loam soils are also present and
comprise 5.3 percent of the soils within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
The petition states that the principal soil series of the Arroyo Seco
AVA are Mocho, Lockwood, Arroyo Seco, Rincon, and Chualar, with Chualar
and Arroyo Seco being the most common soil types. Placentia soils are
present only in very small amounts in limited areas within the Arroyo
Seco AVA.
The petition states that the soil of the proposed realignment area
is comprised of Placentia sandy loam, Chualar, and Arroyo Seco soils.
Although all three soil series are found in both the Arroyo Seco AVA
and the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, Placentia soils are not common in
the Arroyo Seco AVA except within the proposed realignment area. The
petition states that the combination of Placentia, Chualar, and Arroyo
Seco soils is more common within the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA.
Therefore, the petition claims that moving the proposed realignment
area into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA would enhance the boundary
integrity of both AVAs.
TTB Determination
TTB concludes that the petition to modify the boundaries of the
Santa Lucia Highlands AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA merits consideration
and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Boundary Description
See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for
AVA boundary modifications in the proposed regulatory text published at
the end of this proposed rule.
Maps
The petitioner provided the required maps, and they are listed
below in the proposed regulatory text. You may also view the proposed
boundary modifications for the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco
AVAs on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/ava-map-explorer.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a
wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true
place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name, at least 85
percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area
represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions
listed in Sec. 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)).
If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name
appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the
bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in
a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new
label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an
AVA name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July
7, 1986. See Sec. 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
4.39(i)(2)) for details.
If TTB approves the proposed removal of land from the Santa Lucia
Highlands AVA, wines produced primarily from grapes grown in the
removal area would no longer be eligible to be labeled with ``Santa
Lucia Highlands'' as an appellation of origin. Consequently, wine
bottlers using the name ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' in a brand name,
including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin
of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is eligible to use
the AVA name as an appellation of origin under the proposed new
boundary of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA if this proposed rule is
adopted as a final rule. TTB does not anticipate that the proposed
removal of land will affect any current labels because the petition
indicates there are no vineyards currently planted or planned within
the proposed reduction area.
If TTB approved the proposed realignment of the shared Santa Lucia
Highlands-Arroyo Seco AVA boundary, the realignment area would be moved
from the Arroyo Seco AVA into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. Wines
produced primarily from grapes grown in the realignment area would no
longer be eligible to be labeled with ``Arroyo Seco'' as an appellation
of origin. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name ``Arroyo Seco''
in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference
as to the origin of the wine, would have to ensure that the product is
eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin under the
proposed new boundary of the Arroyo Seco AVA if this proposed rule is
adopted as a final rule. However, if the proposed realignment is
approved, wines produced primarily from grapes grown in the realignment
area would be eligible to be labeled with ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' as
an appellation of origin. The petition included a letter of support for
the proposed realignment from the only vineyard owner located within
the proposed realignment area.
The approval of the proposed boundary realignments would not affect
the Monterey AVA or the Central Coast AVA. Bottlers using ``Monterey''
or ``Central Coast'' as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for
wines made from grapes grown within the proposed removal area or the
proposed realignment area would not be affected by these boundary
modifications. The proposed reduction of the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA
boundary would allow vintners to continue using ``Monterey'' and
``Central Coast'' as appellations of origin for wines made from grapes
grown within the proposed reduction area if the wines meet the
eligibility requirements for the appellation. Additionally, the
proposed realignment of the shared Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo Seco
AVA boundary would allow vintners to use ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' as
well as ``Central Coast'' and ``Monterey'' as appellations of origin
for wines made from grapes grown within proposed realignment area if
the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.
Transition Period
If the proposal to realign the shared Santa Lucia Highlands-Arroyo
Seco AVA boundary is approved, a transition rule will apply to labels
for wines produced from grapes grown in the area removed from the
Arroyo Seco AVA and placed into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA (the
``proposed realignment area''). A label containing the words ``Arroyo
Seco'' may be used on wine bottled within two years from the effective
date of the final rule, provided that such label was approved before
the effective date of the final rule and that the wine conforms to the
standards for use of the label set forth in 27 CFR 4.25 or 4.39(i) in
effect prior to the final rule. At the end of this two-year transition
period, if the wine is produced primarily from grapes grown in the
proposed realignment area, then a label containing the words ``Arroyo
Seco'' in the brand name or as an appellation of origin would not be
permitted on the label. TTB believes that the two-year transition
period should provide affected label holders with adequate time to use
up any old labels. This
[[Page 43758]]
transition period is described in the regulatory text of this proposed
rule. TTB notes that wine made primarily from grapes grown in the
proposed realignment area would be eligible to be labeled with ``Santa
Lucia Highlands'' as an appellation of origin upon the effective date
of the final rule. Finally, TTB is not proposing a similar transition
period for wines labeled with ``Santa Lucia Highlands'' that are
produced primarily from grapes grown in the area proposed to be removed
from the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA, because the petition states that
there are no current or planned vineyards within the proposed removal
area.
Public Participation
Comments Invited
TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on
whether it should modify the boundaries of the Santa Lucia Highlands
AVA and the Arroyo Seco AVA as proposed. TTB is also interested in
receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the information
submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available
specific information in support of your comments.
TTB also encourages comments from industry members with wine labels
potentially affected by the proposed realignment of land from the
Arroyo Seco AVA into the Santa Lucia Highlands AVA. If a commenter
believes that a conflict will arise, the comment should describe the
nature of that conflict, including any anticipated negative economic
impact that approval of the proposed AVA will have on an existing
viticultural enterprise. TTB is also interested in receiving
suggestions for ways to avoid conflicts, for example, by adopting a
modified or different boundary for either AVA.
Submitting Comments
You may submit comments on this notice by using one of the
following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the
online comment form posted with this notice within Docket No. TTB-2020-
0007 on ``Regulations.gov,'' the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at
https://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available
under Notice No. 192 on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml">https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments
submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use
Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the ``Help'' tab.
U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the
Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this
notice. Your comments must reference Notice No. 192 and include your
name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English,
be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public
disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB
considers all comments as originals.
In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for
yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If
you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include
the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you
comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the
``Organization'' blank of the online comment form. If you comment via
postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's
comment on letterhead.
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing
date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right
to determine whether to hold a public hearing.
Confidentiality
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public
record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your
comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for
public disclosure.
Public Disclosure
TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice, selected
supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about
this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2020-0007 on the Federal e-
rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at https://www.regulations.gov. A
direct link to that docket is available on the TTB website at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 192. You may
also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page
at https://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use
Regulations.gov, click on the site's ``Help'' tab.
All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization
(if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all
address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous
attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for
posting.
You may also obtain copies of this proposed rule, all related
petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or
mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal at 20 cents per
8.5 x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of
USGS maps or any similarly-sized documents that may be included as part
of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings Division by
email using the web form at https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by
telephone at 202-453-1039, ext. 175, to request copies of comments or
other materials.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived
from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a
proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area.
Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted
this notice of proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
Proposed Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend
title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
0
2. Section 9.59 is amended by removing paragraphs (c)(12) and (13),
redesignating paragraphs (c)(14) through
[[Page 43759]]
(21) as paragraphs (c)(17) through (24), and adding new paragraphs
(c)(12) through (16) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 9.59 Arroyo Seco.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(12) Then south following Paraiso Road to its intersection with an
unnamed, light-duty road north of Clark Road in Section 20, T18S/R6E;
(13) Then east-southeast along the unnamed road for 0.3 mile to its
intersection with an intermittent stream;
(14) Then southwesterly along the intermittent stream for 0.2 mile
to its intersection with the western boundary of Section 21, T18S/R6E;
(15) Then south-southwest in a straight line for approximately 0.3
mile to the intersection of Clark Road and the southern boundary of
Section 21, T18S/R6E;
(16) Then west-southwest along Clark Road for 0.2 mile to its
intersection with an unnamed, light-duty road;
* * * * *
(d) Transition period. A label containing the words ``Arroyo Seco''
in the brand name or as an appellation of origin approved prior to
[EFFECTIVE DATE] may be used on wine bottled before [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE], if the wine conforms to the standards for use of the
label set forth in Sec. 4.25 or Sec. 4.39(i) of this chapter in
effect prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE].
0
3. Section 9.139 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (c)(10) through
(22) as paragraphs (c)(18) through (30), revising paragraphs (c)(1)
through (9), and adding new paragraphs (c)(10) through (17).
The revisions/additions read as follows:
Sec. 9.139 Santa Lucia Highlands.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) From the beginning point, the boundary follows Limekiln Creek
for approximately 1.2 miles northeast to the 120-foot elevation
contour.
(2) Then following the 120-foot elevation contour in a general
southeasterly direction for approximately 0.9 mile to where it
intersects with River Road.
(3) Then following River Road in a southeasterly direction for 0.3
mile to its intersection with an unimproved road near the marked 130-
foot elevation.
(4) Then follow a straight line southeast to the terminus of the
110-foot elevation contour.
(5) Then follow a straight line southeast 0.9 mile, crossing onto
the Gonzales map, to the Salinas River.
(6) Then follow the Salinas River in a south-southeast direction
0.7 mile, crossing onto the Palo Escrito map, to the intersection of
the Salinas River and the 120-foot elevation contour.
(7) Then follow the 120-foot contour south for 1 mile, then
southeast to its intersection with River Road.
(8) Then follow River Road east for 0.1 mile to its intersection
with an unnamed, light-duty road.
(9) Then follow the unnamed road southeast for 0.2 mile to its
intersection with the 160-foot elevation contour.
(10) Then follow the 160-foot elevation contour southeasterly for
approximately 5.9 miles to its intersection with River Road.
(11) Then follow River Road southeasterly for approximately 1 mile
to the intersection of River, Fort Romie, and Foothill Roads.
(12) Then following Foothill Road in a southeasterly direction for
approximately 4 miles to the junction of Foothill Road and Paraiso
Roads on the Soledad map.
(13) Then follow Paraiso Road in a southerly direction, crossing
onto the Paraiso Springs map, to its intersection with an unnamed,
light-duty road north of Clark Road in Section 20, T18S/R6E.
(14) Then follow the unnamed road east-southeast for 0.3 mile to
its intersection with an intermittent stream.
(15) Then follow the intermittent stream in a southwesterly
direction for 0.2 mile to its intersection with the western boundary of
Section 21, T18S/R6E.
(16) Then follow a straight line south-southwest for 0.3 mile to
the intersection of Clark Road and the southern boundary of Section 21,
T18S/R6E.
(17) Then follow Clark Road west-southwest for 0.2 mile to its
intersection with an unnamed, light-duty road.
* * * * *
Signed: March 10, 2020.
Mary G. Ryan,
Acting Administrator.
Approved: June 2, 2020.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
[FR Doc. 2020-14579 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
