56492 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

known locally as Fort Ti Road, at the (17) Proceed north along Connors DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fort Ticonderoga–Larrabees Point Ferry Road approximately 2.1 miles, crossing landing; then the Salmon River, to an unnamed light- Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (3) Proceed west along State Route 73 duty road known locally as County Bureau (State Route 74/Fort Ti Road) Route 33 (Norrisville Road); then approximately 1.6 miles to State Route (18) Proceed west along County Route 27 CFR Part 9 22; then 33 (Norrisville Road) approximately 1.2 [Docket No. TTB–2014–0007: T.D. TTB–141; (4) Proceed north along State Route 22 miles to an unnamed light-duty road Ref: Notice No. 145] approximately 21 miles, crossing onto known locally as Shingle Street; then RIN 1513–AC10 the Lake Champlain map and passing (19) Proceed north along Shingle through the town of Port Henry, to an Street approximately 4 miles to an unnamed light-duty road known locally Expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills unnamed light-duty road known locally Viticultural Area as County Road 44 (Stevenson Road); as County Route 31 (Rabideau Street); then then AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and (5) Proceed north along County Road (20) Proceed west along County Route Trade Bureau, Treasury. 44 (Stevenson Road) approximately 5.8 31 (Rabideau Street) approximately 0.4 ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. miles to a railroad track; then mile to an unnamed light-duty road (6) Proceed northerly along the known locally as Goddeau Street; then SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax railroad track approximately 1.6 miles and Trade Bureau (TTB) is expanding to State Route 9N, west of the town of (21) Proceed north along Goddeau the approximately 33,380-acre ‘‘Sta. Rita Westport; then Street approximately 0.9 mile, crossing Hills’’ viticultural area in Santa Barbara (7) Proceed westerly along State Route the Saranac River, to State Route 3 just County, California, by approximately 9N approximately 4.1 miles to Interstate east of the town of Cadyville; then 2,296 acres. The established viticultural 87; then (22) Proceed east along State Route 3 area and the expansion area are both (8) Proceed north along Interstate 87 approximately 0.5 mile to an unnamed located entirely within the larger Santa approximately 21 miles to the Ausable light-duty road known locally as Akey Ynez Valley viticultural area and the River, southwest of the town of Road; then multicounty Central Coast viticultural Keeseville; then (23) Proceed north on Akey Road area. TTB designates viticultural areas (9) Proceed west (upstream) along the approximately 0.2 mile to State Route to allow vintners to better describe the Ausable River approximately 6 miles to 374; then origin of their wines and to allow a bridge connecting two unnamed light- (24) Proceed east along State Route consumers to better identify wines they duty roads known locally as Burke Road 374 approximately 3.6 miles to State may purchase. and Lower Road in the town of Route 190, also known locally as DATES: This final rule is effective Clintonville, and proceed north along Military Turnpike; then September 21, 2016. the bridge to Lower Road; then (25) Proceed northwest along State FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (10) Proceed west along Lower Road Route 190 (Military Turnpike) Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and approximately 0.6 mile to State Route approximately 15.2 miles to an Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 9N; then unnamed light-duty road just east of Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street (11) Proceed west along State Route Park Brook known locally as County NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; 9N approximately 0.8 mile to an Route 12 (Alder Bend Road), northwest phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175. unnamed light-duty road known locally of Miner Lake State Park; then as County Route 39 (Clintonville Road); SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (26) Proceed north along County then Background on Viticultural Areas (12) Proceed north along County Route 12 (Alder Bend Road) Route 39 (Clintonville Road) approximately 3 miles to U.S. Highway TTB Authority 11; then approximately 1.5 miles to the second Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol crossing of the Little Ausable River, (27) Proceed west along U.S. Highway Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 west of Cook Mountain; then 11 approximately 1.7 miles to an U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary (13) Proceed northeast along the Little unnamed light-duty road known locally of the Treasury to prescribe regulations Ausable River approximately 3.5 miles as County Route 10 (Cannon Corners for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, to the confluence of the river with Road); then and malt beverages. The FAA Act Furnace Brook, near the town of (28) Proceed north along County provides that these regulations should, Harkness; then Route 10 (Cannon Corners Road) among other things, prohibit consumer (14) Proceed west along Furnace approximately 6 miles to the U.S.- deception and the use of misleading Brook approximately 0.17 mile to an Canada border; then statements on labels and ensure that unnamed light-duty road known locally (29) Proceed east along the U.S.- labels provide the consumer with as County Route 40 (Calkins Road); then Canada border approximately 19.8 adequate information as to the identity (15) Proceed north along County miles, returning to the beginning point. and quality of the product. The Alcohol Route 40 (Calkins Road) approximately Signed: June 27, 2016. and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 5.8 miles to an unnamed light-duty road (TTB) administers the FAA Act John J. Manfreda, known locally as County Route 35 pursuant to section 1111(d) of the (Peasleeville Road), south of an Administrator. Homeland Security Act of 2002, unnamed creek known locally as Arnold Approved: August 8, 2016. codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Brook; then Timothy E. Skud, Secretary has delegated various (16) Proceed west along County Route Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and authorities through Treasury 35 (Peasleeville Road) approximately Tariff Policy). Department Order 120–01, dated 0.1 mile to an unnamed light-duty road [FR Doc. 2016–19992 Filed 8–19–16; 8:45 am] December 10, 2013 (superseding known locally as Connors Road; then BILLING CODE 4810–31–P Treasury Order 120–01, dated January

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56493

24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to • The appropriate United States boundary of the AVA. Pinot Noir and perform the functions and duties in the Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) Chardonnay are among the varietals of administration and enforcement of this showing the location of the proposed grapes grown in the proposed expansion law. expansion area, with the boundary of area. The proposed expansion would Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR the proposed expansion area clearly move a portion of the AVA’s existing part 4) authorizes TTB to establish drawn thereon; and eastern boundary approximately one- definitive viticultural areas and regulate • A detailed narrative description of half mile farther to the east. The new the use of their names as appellations of the proposed expansion area boundary boundary would then be defined by a origin on wine labels and in wine based on USGS map markings. road within a north-south canyon advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB Online Availability of Documents named ‘‘Can˜ ada de los Palos Blancos,’’ regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth which is located west of the city of standards for the preparation and All documents and comments Buellton. According to the expansion submission of petitions for the discussed below in this final rule, petition, the new boundary would still establishment or modification of including the petition to expand the Sta. be within the Santa Rita Hills because Rita Hills AVA and its supporting American viticultural areas (AVAs) and a 1906 decision card issued by the U.S. documents, the notice of proposed 2 lists the approved AVAs. Board on Geographic Names states that rulemaking (Notice No. 145), and the the hills extend as far east as the mouth Definition comments and attached supporting of the canyon. documents received in response to that Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB According to the petition, the climate, notice, are available for public viewing regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines topography, soils, and native vegetation within Docket No. TTB–2014–0007 on a viticultural area for American wine as of the proposed expansion area are the ‘‘Regulations.gov’’ Web site at http:// a delimited grape-growing region having similar to those of the established AVA. www.regulations.gov. A direct link to distinguishing features, as described in The climate of both the proposed Docket No. TTB–2014–0007 is available part 9 of the regulations, and a name expansion area and established AVA is under Notice No. 145 on the TTB Web and a delineated boundary, as influenced by cool winds and fog that site at https://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine- established in part 9 of the regulations. move inland from the Pacific Ocean, rulemaking.shtml. These designations allow vintners and providing a climate that is suitable for consumers to attribute a given quality, Petition To Expand the Sta. Rita Hills growing cool-climate wine grapes such reputation, or other characteristic of a AVA as Pinot Noir and Chardonnay. The proposed expansion area and the wine made from grapes grown in an area TTB received a petition from Patrick to the wine’s geographic origin. The established AVA contain oak-studded L. Shabram, on behalf of John rolling hills of similar elevations. establishment of AVAs allows vintners Sebastiano Vineyards and Pence Ranch to describe more accurately the origin of Finally, both the established AVA and Vineyards, proposing to expand the the proposed expansion area have soils their wines to consumers and helps established Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The Sta. consumers to identify wines they may that contain loam, sand, silt, and clay. Rita Hills AVA (27 CFR 9.162) was Although the proposed expansion purchase. Establishment of an AVA is established by T.D. ATF–454, published area is more similar to the established neither an approval nor an endorsement in the Federal Register on May 31, 2001 Sta. Rita Hills AVA than the by TTB of the wine produced in that (66 FR 29476).1 surrounding regions, the petition states area. The Sta. Rita Hills AVA, which covers that the proposed expansion area still Requirements approximately 33,380 acres, is located shares some of the features of the in Santa Barbara County, California, surrounding Santa Ynez Valley AVA Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB between the towns of Lompoc, which and Central Coast AVA. For instance, regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines lies to the west, and Buellton, which the proposed expansion area has the procedure for proposing an AVA lies to the east. The Sta. Rita Hills AVA elevations and rolling hills similar to and provides that any interested party and the proposed expansion area are those found in portions of the larger may petition TTB to establish a grape- located within the Santa Ynez Valley Santa Ynez Valley AVA. However, the growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 AVA (27 CFR 9.54), which is entirely proposed expansion area lacks the of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) within Santa Barbara County. The Santa diversity of topography found within prescribes standards for petitions for the Ynez Valley AVA is within the larger the larger Santa Ynez Valley, such as establishment or modification of AVAs. multicounty Central Coast AVA (27 CFR maze-like canyons and broad alluvial Petitions to expand an AVA must 9.75). The Sta. Rita Hills AVA and the plains. The proposed expansion area include the following: proposed expansion area do not overlap also shares a marine-influenced climate • any other established or proposed AVA. Evidence that the area within the with the Central Coast AVA and the The proposed expansion area is proposed expansion area boundary is western portions of the Santa Ynez nationally or locally known by the name located along the existing eastern boundary of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Valley AVA. However, the proposed of the established AVA; expansion area receives less marine- • The proposed expansion area contains An explanation of the basis for cooled air and fog than the portions of defining the boundary of the proposed approximately 2,296 acres and three commercial vineyards, two of which are expansion area; 2 The United States Board on Geographic Names • A narrative description of the currently divided by the existing eastern is a Federal body created in 1890 and established features of the proposed expansion area in its present form by Federal law in 1947 to 1 The Sta. Rita Hills AVA was originally maintain uniform geographic name usage affecting viticulture, such as climate, established under the name ‘‘Santa Rita Hills.’’ The throughout the Federal Government. Sharing its geology, soils, physical features, and AVA name was later abbreviated to ‘‘Sta. Rita Hills’’ responsibilities with the Secretary of the Interior, elevation, that make the proposed in order to prevent potential confusion between the Board promulgates official geographic feature expansion area similar to the wines bearing the Santa Rita Hills appellation and names with locative attributes as well as principles, the Santa Rita brand name used by a Chilean policies, and procedures governing the use of established AVA and distinguish it from winery. For details, see T.D. TTB–37, published in domestic names, foreign names, Antarctic names, adjacent areas outside the established the Federal Register on December 7, 2005 (70 FR and undersea feature names. See http:// AVA boundary; 72710). geonames.usgs.gov/ for more information.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 56494 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the Central Coast AVA closer to the in Notice No. 145, TTB has a policy of Santa Rita Hills and that the proposed Pacific Ocean and more marine not accepting anonymous comments. expansion area has a different climate. influence than the eastern regions of the Of the 117 comments TTB posted to Some of the opposing comments also Santa Ynez Valley AVA. the docket, 91 comments oppose the question the accuracy of the petitioner’s proposed expansion, and 19 comments data collection methods and analysis. Publication of Notice of Proposed support the proposed expansion. TTB Rulemaking (Notice No. 145) also received five comments from the Discussion of Comments TTB published Notice No. 145 in the petitioner in defense of his analyses and In the following sections, TTB will Federal Register on August 7, 2014 (79 credentials (comments 17, 29, 47, 102, provide a detailed discussion of the FR 46204), proposing to expand the Sta. and 113). In addition, TTB posted one comments received in response to Rita Hills AVA. In the notice, TTB comment requesting an extension of the Notice No. 145 and the bureau’s summarized the evidence from the comment period (comment 20). Finally, response to the comments. petition regarding the name, boundary, TTB posted one comment (comment 91) and distinguishing features for the that responds to claims made in an Name Evidence proposed expansion area. For a detailed earlier comment (comment 83), but does Opposing Comments description of the evidence relating to not specifically express support for or Forty-one of the opposing comments the name, boundary, and distinguishing opposition to the proposed expansion. features of the proposed expansion area, address the name evidence in the and for a comparison of the Supporting Comments Received proposed expansion petition. All of distinguishing features of the proposed TTB received 19 comments these comments state that the proposed expansion area to the surrounding areas, supporting the proposed expansion of expansion area is not a part of the Santa see Notice No. 145. the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Most of these Rita Hills and is instead on an entirely In Notice No. 145, TTB solicited comments assert that the petitioner’s different landmass. Some of the comments on the accuracy of the name, evidence demonstrates that the comments describe this landmass as boundary, and other required proposed expansion area is similar part of the Purisima Hills. The majority, information submitted in support of the enough to the Sta. Rita Hills AVA that however, state that the proposed petition. The comment period for Notice it should be considered part of the expansion area is located within a No. 145 was originally scheduled to established AVA. These commenters landmass known as the ‘‘Buellton close on October 6, 2014. On August 18, include local vineyard owners and Flats,’’ ‘‘Buell Flats,’’ or ‘‘Buell Flat.’’ Of 2014, TTB received a letter from the winemakers, a food and wine writer, the opposing comments that address the chairman of the Sta. Rita Hills sommeliers, a soil and plant nutrition name evidence included in the Winegrowers Alliance (comment 20) consultant, and wine consumers. Of the expansion petition, two provide non- requesting a 90-day extension of the 19 supporting comments, 18 provide anecdotal evidence to support their comment period in order to allow more anecdotal evidence, and 1 offers non- claims (comments 97 and 116). time for industry members to submit anecdotal evidence in the form of a The SRHWA submitted comment 97, comments. The letter stated that local chemical analysis of grapes grown a detailed comment which addresses, grape growers and winemakers were in within the AVA and grapes grown on among other things, the name evidence the process of bottling previous vintages the commenter’s property within the provided in the expansion petition. The and preparing for harvest and thus did proposed expansion area. comment claims although the expansion not have time to prepare and submit petition’s name evidence is largely Opposing Comments Received comments before the close of the based on a 1906 U.S. Board on comment period. TTB received 91 comments from 88 Geographic Names decision card that TTB determined that good cause individual commenters who oppose the defined the boundaries of the Santa Rita existed to extend the comment period. expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Hills, the decision card was essentially Accordingly, TTB published Notice No. The commenters include local residents, revoked by a 1907 USGS bulletin on oil 145A in the Federal Register on local vineyard and winery owners, food resources in Santa Barbara County. One September 3, 2014 (79 FR 52273), which and wine writers and bloggers, vineyard of the two authors of the bulletin was extended the comment period for an managers and consultants, the president Ralph Arnold, the paleontologist listed additional 60 days. TTB did not extend of the Lompoc Valley Chamber of on the 1906 decision card as the the comment period for the requested 90 Commerce and Visitors Bureau, ‘‘authority’’ who submitted the request days because the bureau believed that sommeliers, and the Sta. Rita Hills to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names. neither Notice No. 145 nor the petition Winegrowers Alliance. Three of the 88 The bulletin describes the Santa Rita and supporting materials were commenters submitted 2 comments Hills as extending as far east as ‘‘nearly voluminous or unusually complex, and each, including the Sta. Rita Hills to the edge of the Santa Rosa [land] that a 60-day extension would extend Winegrowers Alliance (SRHWA), which grant.’’ The comment asserts that by this the comment period well past the peak sent in a link to a video presentation as definition, the Santa Rita Hills would of a typical harvest period. As a result, well as a large package of documents not extend as far east as the proposed the comment period for Notice No. 145 that contains statements and reports expansion area and would, instead, end closed on December 5, 2014. from several experts. TTB considers the within the current boundaries of the Sta. package submission from the SRHWA to Rita Hills AVA. Comments Received be a single comment, even though it Comment 97 also states that USGS In response to Notice No. 145, TTB contains statements and reports from Geographic Names Information System, received a total of 121 comments. Of multiple persons writing on behalf of which provides a link to the 1906 these, TTB posted 117 comments for the alliance. decision card, provides three sets of public viewing within Regulations.gov The two most common reasons latitude and longitude coordinates docket number TTB–2014–0007 (see provided for opposing the proposed relating to the Santa Rita Hills. The http://www.regulations.gov/). TTB did expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA are comment claims that when mapped, not post three anonymous comments that the proposed expansion area is not these coordinates ‘‘place the and one duplicate comment. As noted known to be part of the area known as easternmost point of the Santa Rita Hills

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56495

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 56496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56497

‘‘edge of the Sta. Rita Hills’’ proposed expansion area is known by commenter asserts that one can tell from demonstrates that wine critics associate the name ‘‘Sta. Rita Hills.’’ the photo that the Sta. Rita Hills AVA the vineyards and wineries within the and the proposed expansion area are Topography and Native Vegetation proposed expansion area more with the ‘‘two different landmasses, two different Sta. Rita Hills AVA than with the larger, Opposing Comments drainages, and exposures.’’ surrounding Santa Ynez Valley AVA. TTB received 23 comments that argue Three comments also oppose the The advertisement for the Pasadena that the topography of the proposed proposed expansion based on the native PinotFest includes Pence Ranch in its expansion area is markedly different vegetation of the proposed expansion list of Sta. Rita Hills AVA wineries, from the established Sta. Rita Hills area. Comment 103 describes the even though Pence Ranch is not located AVA. Several of the comments state that proposed expansion area as ‘‘windswept grasslands,’’ whereas the Sta. Rita Hills within the AVA’s boundaries and its the current eastern boundary of the is covered with ‘‘majestic oaks.’’ wines are not labeled with the AVA was placed at the point where the Comment 97 and comment 111 both appellation. Pence Ranch’s inclusion in hills change orientation from east-west include copies of a report from an the festival strongly suggests wine (within the AVA) to north-south (within environmental services company. The community members and consumers the proposed expansion area). For report is described as a ‘‘peer review’’ of associate the proposed expansion area example, comment 97 includes a letter the expansion petition and focuses on with the AVA. stating that the proposed expansion area However, TTB does not believe that the petition’s description of the climate was excluded from the AVA because ‘‘it the brochure from Dragonette Cellars and native vegetation of the proposed deviates from the orientation of the provides additional name evidence, expansion area. The report states that existing AVA into the unique Santa Rita even though grapes from Pence Ranch the expansion petition significantly are specifically included in the Sta. Rita Hills and its surrounding valleys.’’ The undercounted the number of valley oaks Hills-labeled wine, because TTB letter asserts that the proposed in the region between U.S. Highway 101 regulations allow up to 15 percent of the expansion area is oriented towards the and the eastern boundary of the AVA, grapes from an AVA-labeled wine to city of Buellton and is therefore including those valley oaks located come from outside the AVA. The ‘‘fundamentally and uniquely different’’ within the proposed expansion area. brochure does not claim that 100 from the AVA. Other comments state The environmental services company percent of the grapes in the wine are that the proposed expansion area conducted its own survey of oak trees in from within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, and contains significant expanses of flat the eastern portion of the AVA, between only 12 percent of the grapes in the land that are different from the terrain Drum Canyon/Mail Road and the wine are specifically attributed to Pence within the AVA. For instance, comment eastern boundary. The report claims that Ranch. 45 states that the AVA contains ‘‘tight at three locations within in the survey Finally, TTB notes that the presence valleys,’’ whereas the proposed area, valley oaks comprised less than within the proposed expansion area of expansion area is in the ‘‘vast open one percent of the oaks present at each geographical features with names other plain’’ beyond the eastern AVA location. However, at the fourth than ‘‘Santa Rita Hills,’’ such as the boundary. Additionally, comment 89 location, which was ‘‘at or near the Purisima Hills or the Buellton/Buell claims that the proposed expansion area AVA’s eastern boundary,’’ valley oaks Flat(s), does not preclude the proposed ‘‘is actually in the flat lands east of the comprised approximately 50 percent of expansion area from also being known Santa Rita Hills.’’ the oaks present, suggesting ‘‘an abrupt as the ‘‘Sta. Rita Hills.’’ TTB notes that Two opposing comments include change’’ at the ridgeline that forms the the Sta. Rita Hills AVA currently non-anecdotal evidence (comments 76 boundary between the AVA and the includes several geographical features and 111) to support the claims that the proposed expansion area ‘‘to a climate known by other names, including the topography of the proposed expansion that is significantly more favorable to Santa Rita Valley, the Santa Ynez River, area differs from that of the Sta. Rita valley oak’’ than to live oak. Drum Canyon, and the foothills of both Hills AVA. Comment 76 includes a link the Purisima Hills and the Santa Rosa to a video created by the SRHWA that Supporting Comments Hills. compares the topography of the Sta. Rita TTB received three comments in In conclusion, TTB has determined Hills AVA to that of the proposed support of the proposed expansion area that the evidence included in the expansion area and the region farther that specifically mentioned its opposing comments does not east. The video describes the AVA as a topography. According to the three sufficiently demonstrate that the ‘‘transverse valley’’ marked by parallel comments, the proposed expansion area proposed expansion area does not hills that run east-west, while the region and the AVA both contain similar contain a portion of the geographical east of the AVA has hills that are topography. Comment 23 asserts that feature known as the Santa Rita Hills. aligned north-south. The video states ‘‘the mesa part of the vineyard [within Additionally, TTB has determined that that the current eastern boundary of the the proposed expansion area] is not the evidence included in any of the AVA follows a high ridgeline ‘‘over dissimilar to other vineyards on flat opposing comments does not 1,000 feet high’’ that is ‘‘close to 800 feet ground’’ within the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. conclusively show that the region of the above the Buell Flats valley floor’’ and Comment 33 argues that the proposed proposed expansion area is not known marks the point where the orientation of expansion area is not on a separate at the ‘‘Sta. Rita Hills’’ or is currently the hills changes. The video also asserts landmass from the AVA because it is on referred to solely as the ‘‘Buellton Flats’’ that, ‘‘It is important to note that the the same hillside as the current AVA’s or ‘‘Buell Flat(s).’’ Therefore, taking into watershed east of the ridgeline [outside eastern boundary. Finally, comment 109 account the name evidence described in of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA] drains into claims that the proposed expansion area both the original AVA petition and T.D. the Buell Flats.’’ Comment 111 includes is not flat and low-lying, as many ATF–454, TTB concludes that the name a wide-angle aerial photograph looking opposing comments claim, but is ‘‘of a evidence provided in the expansion west into the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. The higher elevation and with steeper slopes petition and supplemented by the current Sta. Rita Hills eastern boundary than much of the existing AVA terrain.’’ evidence provided in comment 113 is and a portion of the proposed expansion The expansion petitioner, Mr. sufficient to demonstrate that the area are marked on the photo. The Shabram, submitted three comments

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 56498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56499

consider hydrologic features to AVA from all others,’’ and that the Burgundian varietals that the AVA is distinguish the AVA from the region to proposed expansion area’s daily highs known to grow so successfully) . . . .’’ the east, including the proposed are warmer than 80 degrees. Other The Web site also includes a photo expansion area. comments question the petitioner’s data showing a neighboring vineyard within With regard to the comments on the collection methods, claiming that the the AVA ‘‘nestled in fog,’’ while the native vegetation within the proposed petitioner ‘‘cherry-picked’’ temperature Pence Ranch vineyard is sunny. The expansion area, TTB believes that the data to make it appear as though the letter suggests that the absence of fog in report from the environmental services proposed expansion area’s climate is the photo of the Pence Ranch vineyard company contained in comments 97 and similar to the AVA (comment 44), and along with the vineyard owner’s plans 111 suggests the description of the that the petitioner should have used an to graft Pinot Noir vines onto a varietal native vegetation in the expansion eastern comparison point closer to the not currently grown in the Sta. Rita petition may be inaccurate. The report proposed expansion area than Ballard Hills AVA demonstrate that the asserts that valley oaks are more Canyon (comments 86 and 97). proposed expansion area has a different common within the proposed expansion Three of these opposing comments climate. area than the expansion petition claims. provide non-anecdotal evidence Comment 97 also includes a report However, both the report and the (comments 76, 97, and 111). For from Dr. Deborah Elliott-Fisk, Professor expansion area concur that oak trees, in example, the video in comment 76 Emeritus of Geography, Ecology, and general, do grow in both the AVA and includes footage of fog covering the Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology the proposed expansion area. TTB also AVA, while the vineyards in the at the University of California, Davis. In notes that T.D. ATF–454 states that the proposed expansion area are fog-free. her report, Dr. Fisk critiques the climate AVA is ‘‘oak studded’’ but does not The video states that the absence of fog data provided in the expansion petition. distinguish between valley oaks and over the proposed expansion area Dr. Fisk commissioned Mark Battany, coastal live oaks. Therefore, although demonstrates that the ridgeline forming the University of California Cooperative TTB agrees that the expansion petition’s the AVA’s eastern boundary prevents Extension Viticulture Farm Advisor for estimate of the number of valley oaks marine-influenced fog and air from Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo versus live oaks found within the moving farther east. Comment 97 also counties, to provide an analysis of data proposed expansion area may not be refers to this video as evidence that from weather stations placed in accurate, the presence or absence of a marine air does not enter the proposed vineyards throughout Santa Barbara specific species of oak is not a expansion area. County. These weather stations include distinguishing feature of the AVA. TTB Additionally, comment 97 asserts that stations that Dr. Fisk asserts correspond has also determined that the expansion the climate data in the expansion to stations used in the expansion petition contains enough other evidence petition ‘‘cannot be considered adequate petition, as well as several stations she to demonstrate the similarity between or credible evidence to establish that the describes as being ‘‘just outside’’ of the the proposed expansion area and the original petitioners were incorrect or Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Dr. Fisk states that AVA to allow the expansion petition’s incomplete in their analysis of the Mr. Battany’s climate analysis used two native vegetation evidence to be distinctive climate of the AVA . . . .’’ different methods to calculate growing excluded from consideration. The comment asserts that it is degree days (GDDs), and the results inappropriate for the expansion petition were converted into isotherm maps that Climate to use a weather station in the Ballard show the climate patterns in the county. Opposing Comments Canyon AVA to demonstrate that the According to Dr. Fisk, the results of the proposed expansion area’s climate is analysis demonstrate that the proposed TTB received 45 comments opposing more similar to the Sta. Rita Hills AVA expansion area is consistently warmer the proposed expansion based on than the region east of the proposed than the AVA, and the isotherm maps climate. The majority of these opposing expansion area because Ballard Canyon show that the transition to warmer comments state that the proposed is ‘‘over 6 miles away and separated by temperatures occurs at the current expansion area is warmer than the AVA a mountain range . . . .’’ Furthermore, eastern boundary of the AVA. Dr. Fisk because the ridgeline that forms the the comment asserts that the expansion also claims that when comparing Mr. current eastern boundary of the AVA petition should not have used Battany’s GDD data to the GDD data in prevents most, if not all, of the cool comparison data from a region that is the expansion petition, ‘‘none of the marine air and fog from travelling already within an established AVA numbers match . . . .’’ As a result, Dr. farther east. For example, many of the because, ‘‘[w]hen TTB established the Fisk concludes that the climate data in opposing comments claim that as one Ballard Canyon AVA, the agency the expansion petition is inaccurate and travels east along State Highway 246, recognized the area as viticultural [sic] that the petitioner’s data collection the temperature becomes noticeably distinct from the surrounding areas. The methods and analysis methods were warmer after crossing the eastern petitioners have simply stated the faulty. boundary of the AVA. Some of the obvious truth of what TTB determined– Finally, comment 97 and comment comments claim that it is evident that the areas outside Ballard Canyon AVA 111 both also include the same report the proposed expansion area has a are not like Ballard Canyon AVA.’’ from the environmental services warmer climate than the AVA because Comment 97 also states that the Web company that was previously discussed different vegetables and berries are site from Pence Ranch, which is a in the ‘‘Topography and Native grown in the proposed expansion area vineyard within the proposed expansion Vegetation’’ section of this document. (comment 53) or because bud break and area, provides additional evidence that The report critiques a map included in harvest occur earlier in the proposed the climate of the proposed expansion the expansion petition that illustrates expansion area (comments 81, 87, and area is different from that of the Sta. Rita the flow of wind through the AVA and 105). Another comment, comment 116 Hills AVA. The Pence Ranch Web site into the proposed expansion area. The claims, ‘‘An average daily high notes that the vineyard is report asserts that the map provides an temperature of less than 80 degrees and contemplating, in the words of the inaccurate description of the wind an abundance of sunshine is the factor commenter, ‘‘graft[ing] an acre of Pinot patterns, and that the winds move at that distinguishes the Sta. Rita Hills Noir vines to Gamay (not one of the different speeds as they are constricted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 56500 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56501

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 56502 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

warmest station is Station 25, which is direction of airflow through the Sta. Rita weather data was collected and the near Lake Cachuma. None of the Hills AVA and the paths the marine air general locations of the stations. The isotherm maps show Station 25 in an takes to enter the proposed expansion expansion petition states the length of isotherm that extends west of Buellton, area. The map was not intended to show time data was collected at each station which means that the proposed how strongly the wind moves through and provides a general description of expansion area is always cooler than the the AVA or the force with which it exits where the station was placed (i.e., inside station closest to the comparison the AVA and enters the proposed the AVA, inside the proposed expansion location used in T.D. ATF–454. expansion area. TTB notes that the scale area, within the Ballard Canyon AVA), Therefore, TTB believes the isotherm of the wind maps created by the as well as a map showing the location maps do not provide sufficient evidence environmental services company and of each weather station. Furthermore, to show that the proposed expansion included in the report is small and the expansion petition includes the area does not meet the temperature difficult to read, and that the AVA and latitude and longitude of each weather parameters for the Sta. Rita Hills AVA proposed expansion area are only station, although TTB does not require as set forth in T.D. ATF–454. vaguely marked. However, TTB notes such detailed information. Finally, in TTB has also determined that the that the maps do appear to show that air response to comments questioning his differences in Mr. Battany’s and Mr. is able to enter the proposed expansion data collection methods, Mr. Shabram Shabram’s GDD totals can be explained area from the west, which is not submitted comment 113 to provide by their use of different GDD calculation contrary to what the expansion petition more detailed information on the methods and different scales for claims. weather station models he used, as well measuring temperature. When TTB believes that the temperature as photographs of the several of the comparing the 2008–2011 GDD totals for maps compiled by the environmental stations, neither of which was required the only station used by both Mr. services company are also of too small by TTB. Therefore, TTB believes the Shabram and Mr. Battany (Station 26/ a scale to read easily. The AVA and expansion petitioner has provided more Station E), TTB does agree with the proposed expansion area are vaguely information on the weather stations statement in comment 97 that the totals marked on these maps, as well. used in the expansion petition than TTB appear vastly different at first glance. Therefore, TTB cannot agree with the regulations require. For instance, Mr. Battany reports a GDD environmental services company’s In summary, TTB has determined that total of 1,694 for Station 26/Station E for claim that their temperature maps show the expansion petition provides 2008, using the ‘‘daily maximum- that the proposed expansion area is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that minimum’’ calculation method, while ‘‘several degrees warmer, on average,’’ the climate of the proposed expansion Mr. Shabram reports a GDD total of than the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. area meets the climate parameters for 3,363 using a similar but slightly With regard to the report’s critique of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as set forth in different calculation method. However, the temperature collection methods T.D. ATF–454: temperatures that are when one converts Mr. Battany’s GDD used in the expansion petition, TTB first moderated by marine air and fog, are total for Station 26/Station E from notes that § 9.12 does not set forth a cool enough for growing cool-climate degrees Celsius to degrees Fahrenheit by minimum number of years that climate grape varietals (specifically, Pinot Noir multiplying by 1.8, the GDD total data must be collected. Section 9.12(a) and Chardonnay), and are warmer than becomes 3,049.2, which is much closer only requires that a petition include temperatures in Lompoc and cooler than to Mr. Shabram’s total.3 TTB believes ‘‘sufficient information, data, and temperatures in the eastern portion of evidence such that no independent that the remaining difference of 314 the Santa Ynez Valley AVA verification or research is required by GDDs may be explained by the fact that (specifically, the region near Lake TTB.’’ However, petitioners are Mr. Shabram’s calculation method does Cachuma). TTB has also determined encouraged to submit data from as long not allow for daily minimum that none of the opposing comments a period as possible in order to provide temperatures below 50 degrees, which provide sufficient evidence to show the most complete picture of a region’s naturally results in higher totals than conclusively that the climate of the climate. TTB notes that the expansion either of Mr. Battany’s calculation proposed expansion area does not meet petition originally included only 2 methods, which use any minimum these parameters. Finally, TTB believes years’ worth of temperature data from temperature above 0. Therefore, TTB that the petitioner has provided a within the proposed expansion area. sufficient explanation of the methods he does not agree with Dr. Fisk’s assertion Later, Mr. Shabram provided a third that Mr. Battany’s GDD totals prove that used to collect and analyze the climate year of data, which came from a data for the proposed expansion area, the temperature data included in the different weather station within the expansion petition is inaccurate and and that TTB is able to determine that proposed expansion area because the his methods are sound. that Mr. Shabram’s methods were faulty. original weather station was no longer TTB notes that wind speed was not in service. TTB was satisfied that the Comments Regarding Issues Outside the mentioned in T.D. ATF–454 and is not new station was in close enough Scope of Part 9 considered to be a distinguishing feature proximity to the location of the original Numerous comments include various of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Nevertheless, station and allowed the data to be used reasons for opposition to the proposed TTB reviewed the report from the in the petition. expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA environmental services company that TTB also notes that § 9.12 does not that do not relate to the regulatory was included in comments 97 and 111. require petitioners to provide detailed criteria set forth in § 9.12 for AVA With regard to the report’s critique of information on the model of the weather petitions. The points made by these the wind map provided in the stations they used, how the stations comments include the following: expansion petition, TTB notes that the were calibrated, or where the stations 1. Grapes and wines from the intent of the map was to show the were placed with respect to ‘‘slope, proposed expansion area have different aspect, orientation, land-cover, characteristics/flavors from grapes and 3 Celsius-to-Fahrenheit conversion method from the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction vegetation, and nearby structures.’’ TTB wines from the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Center Web page (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/ believes it is sufficient for a petitioner Many comments state that consumers products/wesley/cfsr/GDD.html). to provide the years during which the have come to expect a certain taste or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 56503

style from wines of the Sta. Rita Hills wines from that area, and hypothetical acres, effective 30 days from the AVA. These comments assert that the financial gains or losses that may result publication date of this document. grapes and wines from the proposed from the establishment or expansion of Boundary Description expansion area taste so different that an AVA are not considered by TTB in consumers will be confused if the determining the merits of a petition. See the narrative description of the grapes and wines are marketed as 3. Expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills boundary of the expanded Sta. Rita Hills coming from the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. AVA will lead to further expansions of AVA in the regulatory text published at TTB notes that the purpose of AVAs the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as well as other the end of this final rule. is to allow vintners to describe more AVAs. Maps accurately the origin of their wines to Several comments argue that consumers and to help consumers approving the proposed expansion will The petitioner provided the required identify wines they may purchase. The lead to more petitions to expand the Sta. maps, and they are listed below in the establishment of an AVA is neither an Rita Hills AVA and/or other established regulatory text. approval nor an endorsement by TTB of AVAs. The comments generally state Impact on Current Wine Labels the wine or grapes produced in that that approving the proposed expansion area, including a determination of wine will set a precedent for expansion that Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits or grape taste or quality. Therefore, will make it more difficult for TTB to any label reference on a wine that discussions of wine and grape taste and reject future expansions to the Sta. Rita indicates or implies an origin other than quality are not relevant in determining Hills AVA because the integrity of the the wine’s true place of origin. For a whether or not to expand the Sta. Rita original boundaries will have been wine to be labeled with an AVA name Hills AVA. impacted. As a result, the comments or with a brand name that includes an 2. Approval of the proposed predict that TTB will see a large AVA name, at least 85 percent of the expansion will tarnish the reputation of increase expansion petitions submittals, wine must be derived from grapes the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. Numerous many of which will lack merit. grown within the area represented by commenters claim that including the The modification of AVA boundaries that name, and the wine must meet the proposed expansion area in the Sta. Rita is specifically allowed under § 9.12 of other conditions listed in 27 CFR Hills AVA will cause the AVA to lose the TTB regulations, which also sets 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for its defining characteristics. Some forth the requirements for such labeling with an AVA name and that commenters state that expanding the petitions. The merits of expansion name appears in the brand name, then AVA will cause it to lose its ‘‘purity and petitions are evaluated based on these the label is not in compliance and the distinctiveness’’ (comment 27), and the requirements, as well as on the bottler must change the brand name and expansion would negate the ‘‘countless regulatory history of the AVA, meaning obtain approval of a new label. hours and resources [spent] educating that the expansion petitions must Similarly, if the AVA name appears in and indoctrinating millions of provide adequate name evidence and another reference on the label in a consumers about the AVA’’ (comment demonstrate that the proposed misleading manner, the bottler would 45). Other commenters assert that the expansion area has the same have to obtain approval of a new label. petitioners’ motives for proposing the distinguishing features as described in Different rules apply if a wine has a expansion are purely financial and have the Treasury Decision that established brand name containing an AVA name nothing to do with maintaining or the AVA. TTB’s decision regarding that was used as a brand name on a enhancing the character of the AVA. whether to approve a proposed label approved before July 7, 1986. See TTB’s regulations in part 9 set forth expansion is not based on the potential 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. the requirements for petitions proposing for further expansion or other Bottlers currently using ‘‘Central the establishment or modification of an modification of the boundaries of the Coast,’’ ‘‘Santa Ynez Valley,’’ or ‘‘Sta. AVA. TTB has determined that the affected AVA or any other established Rita Hills’’ as an appellation of origin or expansion petition meets the AVA, nor would TTB’s decision affect in a brand name for wines made from requirements of part 9 and demonstrates the likelihood of the approval of any grapes grown within the Central Coast, that the proposed expansion area is such proposals in the future. Santa Ynez Valley, or Sta. Rita Hills within the parameters of the AVAs will not be affected by the TTB Determination distinguishing features set forth in T.D. expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills AVA. ATF–454. Therefore, TTB does not After careful review of the petition The expansion of the Sta. Rita Hills believe that expanding the Sta. Rita and the comments received in response AVA will allow vintners to use ‘‘Sta. Hills AVA to include the proposed to Notice No. 145, TTB finds that the Rita Hills,’’ ‘‘Santa Ynez Valley,’’ and expansion area would be arbitrary or evidence provided by the petitioner ‘‘Central Coast’’ as appellations of origin contrary to either the TTB regulations as supports the expansion of the Sta. Rita for wines made primarily from grapes set forth in part 9 or the parameters for Hills AVA, based on the requirements of grown within the expansion area if the the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as set forth in § 9.12 and the distinguishing features of wines meet the eligibility requirements T.D. ATF–454. the Sta. Rita Hills AVA as defined in for the appellation. TTB also notes that vineyard owners T.D. ATF–454. TTB has also determined and vintners within an AVA will that the comments received in response Regulatory Flexibility Act frequently form an association to Notice No. 145 did not provide TTB certifies that this regulation will dedicated to promoting grapes and sufficient evidence to refute the not have a significant economic impact wines of the AVA and the business evidence provided in the expansion on a substantial number of small interests of its members. Therefore, the petition. Accordingly, under the entities. The regulation imposes no new hope of financial benefits is likely not authority of the FAA Act, section reporting, recordkeeping, or other an uncommon motive for petitioning to 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of administrative requirement. Any benefit establish or expand an AVA. However, 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the TTB derived from the use of an AVA name any benefit derived from the use of an regulations, TTB expands the Sta. Rita would be the result of a proprietor’s AVA name is the result of a proprietor’s Hills AVA in Santa Barbara County, efforts and consumer acceptance of efforts and consumer acceptance of California, by approximately 2,296 wines from that area. Therefore, no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES 56504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

regulatory flexibility analysis is contour approximately 0.5 miles, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If required. crossing onto the Zaca Creek, Calif., you have questions on this temporary Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map, to the Executive Order 12866 deviation, call or email Donna Gagliano, intersection of the 320-foot elevation Bridge Administration Branch, Coast It has been determined that this final contour with an unnamed, unimproved Guard; telephone 504–671–2128, email rule is not a significant regulatory action north-south road that follows the length [email protected]. as defined by Executive Order 12866 of of the Can˜ ada de los Palos Blancos, San September 30, 1993. Therefore, no Carlos de Jonata Land Grant, T. 6N, R. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulatory assessment is required. 32W. Victoria County Navigation District/Port (6) Proceed north-northwest along the of Victoria in conjunction with the Drafting Information unnamed, unimproved road 1.2 miles, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations crossing onto the Los Alamos, Calif., requested a temporary deviation from and Rulings Division drafted this final Quadrangle U.S.G.S. map, and continue the operating schedule of the Victoria rule. along the road 1.3 miles to the marked Barge Canal Railroad Lift Bridge across List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 635-foot elevation point at the Victoria Barge Canal, mile 29.4, at intersection of the road and a 4-wheel Bloomington, Victoria County, Texas. Wine. drive trail, San Carlos de Jonata Land This deviation was requested to allow The Regulatory Amendment Grant, T. 7N, R. 32W. the bridge owner to replace old wire (7) Proceed northwest in a straight cables utilized in the raising and For the reasons discussed in the line approximately 1.3 miles to an lowering of the bridge deck. This bridge preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter unnamed hilltop, elevation 1443 feet. I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as Section 20, T. 7N, R. 32W. is governed by 33 CFR 117.991. follows: * * * * * This deviation allows the vertical lift bridge to remain closed-to-navigation PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL Signed: July 27, 2016. from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, AREAS John J. Manfreda, September 1, 2016. The bridge has a Administrator. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 vertical clearance of 22 feet above high continues to read as follows: Approved: August 3, 2016. water in the closed-to-navigation Timothy E. Skud, Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. position and 50 feet above high water in Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and the open-to-navigation position. Subpart C—Approved American Tariff Policy). Navigation on the waterway consists of Viticultural Areas [FR Doc. 2016–19998 Filed 8–19–16; 8:45 am] commercial traffic,-which is primarily BILLING CODE 4310–31–P vessels and tows providing services to ■ 2. Section 9.162 is amended by adding the Port of Victoria. paragraph (b)(6), revising paragraphs For the duration of the replacement of (c)(3) through (6), redesignating DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND paragraphs (c)(7) through (19) as SECURITY cables, vessels will not be allowed to paragraphs (c)(8) through (20), and pass through the bridge. Vessels traffic adding a new paragraph (c)(7). Coast Guard coordination will be scheduled to avoid The additions and revisions read as unnecessary delays. The bridge will not follows: 33 CFR Part 117 be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for [Docket No. USCG–2016–0774] § 9.162 Sta. Rita Hills. vessels to pass. * * * * * Drawbridge Operation Regulation; The Coast Guard will also inform the (b) * * * Victoria Barge Canal, Bloomington, TX (6) ‘‘Zaca Creek, Calif.,’’ edition of users of the waterways through our 1959. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners (c) * * * ACTION: Notice of deviation from of the change in operating schedule for (3) Proceed west-northwest in a drawbridge regulations. the bridge so that vessel operators can straight line 0.5 mile to the intersection arrange their transits to minimize any of Santa Rosa Road and an unnamed, SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a impact caused by the temporary unimproved road that runs just north of temporary deviation from the operating deviation. schedule that governs the Victoria Barge a marked gaging station. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), Canal Railroad Bridge across Victoria (4) Proceed west along the unnamed, the drawbridge must return to its regular Barge Canal, mile 29.4, at Bloomington, unimproved road approximately 0.4 operating schedule immediately at the mile to a ‘‘T’’ intersection with an Victoria County, Texas. The deviation is necessary to conduct maintenance on end of the effective period of this unnamed, unimproved road and the temporary deviation. This deviation 320-foot elevation contour, Santa Rosa the bridge. This deviation allows the from the operating regulations is Land Grant, T. 6N, R. 32W. bridge to remain temporarily closed-to- (5) Proceed northwest along the 320- navigation for 12 hours. authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. foot elevation contour, crossing onto the DATES: This deviation is effective from David M. Frank, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on September 1, 2016. Santa Rosa Hills, Calif., Quadrangle Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard U.S.G.S. map, then continue northwest, ADDRESSES: The docket for this District. north, and northeast along the deviation, [USCG–2016–0774] is [FR Doc. 2016–19933 Filed 8–19–16; 8:45 am] meandering 320-foot elevation contour available at http://www.regulations.gov. for approximately 1.2 miles, crossing Type the docket number in the BILLING CODE 9110–04–P onto the Solvang, Calif., Quadrangle ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. U.S.G.S. map, and continue east then Click on Open Docket Folder on the line north along the 320-foot elevation associated with this deviation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Aug 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\22AUR1.SGM 22AUR1 Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES