Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11355 

Examples of Survey Terms 

Certification: A section of the survey in 

which a person (an authorizing official) 

certifies that the information supplied in 

response to the survey is complete and 

correct, to the best of the person’s knowledge. 

Facility: A building or the minimum 

complex of buildings or parts of buildings in 

which a person operates to serve a particular 

function, producing revenue and incurring 

costs for the person. A facility may produce 

an item of tangible or intangible property or 

may perform a service. It may encompass a 

floor or group of floors within a building, a 

single building, or a group of buildings or 

structures. Often, a facility is a group of 

related locations at which employees work, 

together constituting a profit-and-loss center 

for the person, and it may be identified by 

a unique Dun and Bradstreet number. 

Sole source: An organization that is the 

only source for the supply of parts, 

components, materials, or services. No 

alternative U.S. or non-U.S. based supplier 

exists other than the current supplier. 

Survey template: The data collection 

instrument supplied by BIS to persons by 

which survey information is recorded and 

submitted to BIS. The survey is generally 

organized in a question and answer format 

and is presented on an electronic survey 

system. 

Supplier: An entity from which your 

organization obtains inputs. A supplier may 

be another firm with which you have a 

contractual relationship, or it may be another 

facility owned by the same parent 

organization. The inputs may be materials, 

products or services. 

Dated: February 24, 2015. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04299 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Part 9 

[Docket No. TTB–2015–0004; Notice No. 

148] 

RIN 1513–AC11 

Proposed Establishment of the Los 

Olivos District Viticultural Area 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to 

establish the approximately 22,820-acre 

‘‘Los Olivos District’’ viticultural area in 

Santa Barbara County, California. The 

proposed viticultural area lies entirely 

within the Santa Ynez Valley 

viticultural area and the larger, 

multicounty Central Coast viticultural 

area. TTB designates viticultural areas 

to allow vintners to better describe the 

origin of their wines and to allow 

consumers to better identify wines they 

may purchase. TTB invites comments 

on this proposed addition to its 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments 

on this document to one of the 

following addresses: 

• Internet: http://www.regulations.gov 

(via the online comment form for this 

document as posted within Docket No. 

TTB–2015–0004 at ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ 

the Federal e-rulemaking portal); 

• U.S. Mail: Director, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; or 

• Hand delivery/courier in lieu of 

mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 

200–E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this document for specific instructions 

and requirements for submitting 

comments, and for information on how 

to request a public hearing or view or 

request copies of the petition and 

supporting materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street 

NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; 

phone 202–453–1039, ext. 175. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background on Viticultural Areas 

TTB Authority 

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 

U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary 

of the Treasury to prescribe regulations 

for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, 

and malt beverages. The FAA Act 

provides that these regulations should, 

among other things, prohibit consumer 

deception and the use of misleading 

statements on labels and ensure that 

labels provide the consumer with 

adequate information as to the identity 

and quality of the product. The Alcohol 

and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

(TTB) administers the FAA Act 

pursuant to section 1111(d) of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, 

codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The 

Secretary has delegated various 

authorities through Treasury 

Department Order 120–01 (Revised), 

dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB 

Administrator to perform the functions 

and duties in the administration and 

enforcement of this law. 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 

part 4) authorizes TTB to define 

viticultural areas and sets out 

requirements for the use of their names 

as appellations of origin on wine labels 

and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of 

the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets 

forth standards for the preparation and 

submission to TTB of petitions for the 

establishment or modification of 

American viticultural areas (AVAs) and 

lists the approved AVAs. 

Definition 

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines 

a viticultural area for American wine as 

a delimited grape-growing region having 

distinguishing features, as described in 

part 9 of the regulations, and a name 

and a delineated boundary, as 

established in part 9 of the regulations. 

These designations allow vintners and 

consumers to attribute a given quality, 

reputation, or other characteristic of a 

wine made from grapes grown in an area 

to the wine’s geographic origin. The 

establishment of AVAs allows vintners 

to describe more accurately the origin of 

their wines to consumers and helps 

consumers to identify wines they may 

purchase. Establishment of an AVA is 

neither an approval nor an endorsement 

by TTB of the wine produced in that 

area. 

Requirements 

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB 

regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines 

the procedure for proposing an AVA 

and provides that any interested party 

may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 

of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) 

prescribes the standards for petitions 

requesting the establishment or 

modification of AVAs. Petitions to 

establish an AVA must include the 

following: 

• Evidence that the region within the 

proposed AVA boundary is nationally 

or locally known by the AVA name 

specified in the petition; 

• An explanation of the basis for 

defining the boundary of the proposed 

AVA; 

• A narrative description of the 

features of the proposed AVA affecting 

viticulture, such as climate, geology, 

soils, physical features, and elevation, 

that make the proposed AVA distinctive 

and distinguish it from adjacent areas 

outside the proposed viticultural AVA; 

• The appropriate United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) 

showing the location of the proposed 

AVA, with the boundary of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11356 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; 

and 

• A detailed narrative description of 

the proposed AVA boundary based on 

USGS map markings. 

Los Olivos District Petition 

TTB received a petition from C. 

Frederic Brander, owner and winemaker 

of the Brander Vineyard, proposing the 

establishment of the approximately 

22,820-acre ‘‘Los Olivos District’’ AVA 

in Santa Barbara County, California. 

There are 12 bonded wineries and 

approximately 47 commercially 

producing vineyards covering a total of 

1,120 acres within the proposed AVA. 

According to the petition, the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

Los Olivos District AVA include its 

topography, soils, and climate. Unless 

otherwise noted, all information and 

data pertaining to the proposed AVA 

contained in this document are from the 

petition for the proposed Los Olivos 

District AVA and its supporting 

exhibits. 

The proposed Los Olivos District 

AVA includes the towns of Los Olivos, 

Solvang, Ballard, and Santa Ynez. The 

proposed AVA lies entirely within the 

Santa Ynez Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.54), 

which, in turn, lies within the larger, 

multicounty Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 

9.75). The proposed Los Olivos District 

AVA shares its western boundary with 

the eastern boundary of the Ballard 

Canyon AVA (27 CFR 9.230) and its 

eastern boundary with the western 

boundary of the Happy Canyon of Santa 

Barbara AVA (27 CR 9.217), but it does 

not overlap either of these AVAs. 

Name Evidence 

In the late 1800s, Alden March Boyd 

purchased land in Santa Barbara County 

and planted a 5,000-tree olive grove he 

named ‘‘Rancho Los Olivos.’’ The 

community that grew up nearby took 

the name ‘‘Los Olivos,’’ after Boyd’s 

ranch. The proposed Los Olivos District 

AVA takes its name from the ranch and 

the town, both of which are located 

within the boundaries of the proposed 

AVA. The town and the ranch appear on 

the USGS Los Olivos quadrangle map. 

The town of Los Olivos also appears on 

a road map of Santa Barbara County, 

published by the American Automobile 

Association, which was included with 

the petition. 

Name evidence for the proposed AVA 

is supported by the fact that several 

businesses use the moniker ‘‘Los 

Olivos’’ in their names, including the 

Los Olivos Grand Hotel, the Gallery Los 

Olivos, the Los Olivos Cafe ́, and the Los 

Olivos Grocery. Additionally, several 

public institutions that serve residents 

within the proposed AVA use the name 

‘‘Los Olivos,’’ including the Los Olivos 

Library, the Los Olivos Post Office, and 

the Los Olivos Elementary School. 

Boundary Evidence 

The boundary of the proposed Los 

Olivos District AVA separates the low, 

relatively flat plain that comprises the 

proposed AVA from the higher 

elevations and more rugged and 

mountainous terrain that surround the 

proposed AVA in all directions. The 

northern portion of the proposed 

boundary follows the 1,000-foot 

elevation contour through the lower 

foothills of the San Rafael Mountains 

and approximates the point above 

which marine fog does not reach. The 

eastern portion of the proposed 

boundary follows straight lines drawn 

between points shown on the USGS 

maps and separates the proposed AVA 

from the canyon lands of the Happy 

Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA. The 

southern portion of the proposed 

boundary follows the Santa Ynez River 

and separates the proposed AVA from 

the Santa Ynez Mountains and the Los 

Padres National Forest. The western 

portion of the proposed boundary 

follows several roads and straight lines 

drawn between points on the USGS 

maps and separates the proposed AVA 

from the canyon lands of the Ballard 

Canyon AVA to the west. 

Distinguishing Features 

The distinguishing features of the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA 

include its topography, soils, and 

climate. 

Topography 

According to the petition, the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA is 

located on the only broad alluvial 

terrace plain of the Santa Ynez River. 

The topography of the proposed AVA is 

relatively uniform, with nearly flat 

terrain that gently slopes downward to 

the south. Elevations within the AVA 

range from approximately 400 feet in 

the southern portion of the proposed 

AVA, along the Santa Ynez River, to 

1,000 feet in the northern portion, in the 

foothills of the San Rafael Mountains. 

The petition discusses the benefits 

that the relatively flat, uniform 

topography of the proposed AVA has for 

viticulture. The lack of steeply sloped 

terrain minimizes the risk of erosion, 

allows vineyard owners more options to 

space vines and orient rows, and 

facilitates mechanical harvesting and 

tilling. The flat, open terrain also allows 

vineyards within the proposed AVA to 

receive uniform amounts of sunlight, 

rainfall, and temperature-moderating fog 

because there are no significant hills or 

mountains within the proposed AVA to 

block the rainfall and fog or to shade the 

vineyards. 

The proposed Los Olivos District is 

surrounded by higher elevations and 

mountainous terrain in all directions. 

To the north are the San Rafael 

Mountains, with steep slopes and 

elevations reaching over 2,000 feet. To 

the east is the Happy Canyon of Santa 

Barbara AVA, which is marked by 

steeper terrain, rolling hills, and 

canyons. Elevations within the portion 

of the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara 

AVA immediately adjacent to the 

proposed AVA reach heights of 1,600 

feet. To the south of the proposed AVA 

are the Santa Ynez Mountains and the 

Los Padres National Forest, which have 

elevations reaching over 3,000 feet and 

steep, rugged terrain unsuitable for 

commercial viticulture. To the west of 

the proposed AVA is the Ballard 

Canyon AVA, which has rolling hills, 

maze-like canyons, and elevations 

reaching 1,200 feet. 

Soils 

Over 95 percent of the soils within the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA are 

from the Positas-Ballard-Santa Ynez soil 

association and are derived from 

alluvium, including Orcutt sand and 

terrace deposits. The soils are 

moderately to well-drained gravelly fine 

sandy loams and clay loams with low to 

moderate fertility. 

According to the petition, the soils 

found in the proposed Los Olivos 

District AVA are well-suited for 

viticulture. The soils drain well enough 

that the vines are not susceptible to root 

disease and chlorosis but do not drain 

so excessively as to require frequent 

irrigation. Soil nutrient levels within the 

proposed AVA are adequate to produce 

healthy vines and fruit without 

promoting excessive growth. Finally, 

the uniformity of the soils throughout 

the proposed Los Olivos District AVA 

results in a greater consistency in 

growing conditions for vineyards than is 

found in regions with greater soil 

variations. 

To the north of the proposed Los 

Olivos District AVA, within the San 

Rafael Mountains, approximately 95 

percent of the soils are of the ChamiseArnold-Crow Hill association, which is 

described as well-drained to excessively 

drained and very low to moderately 

fertile. To the east and south of the 

proposed AVA, the soils are more 

diverse. Within the Happy Canyon of 

Santa Barbara AVA, to the east of the 

proposed AVA, approximately 40 

percent of the soils are from the PositasBallard-Santa Ynez association. The 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11357 

1Source: Western Regional Climate Center period 

of record monthly climate summary, 1917–present. 

See www.wrcc.dri.edu. 

2Source: Petition to Establish the Ballard Canyon 

AVA; data collected from 2005, 2008, and 2009. See 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=

TTB-2013-0001-0002. 

3Source: California Irrigation Management 

Information System Weather Station #64, Santa 

Ynez, from 1986-present. See University of 

California IPM Online at www.ucipm.ucdavis.edu/ 

WEATHER/index.html. 

4Source: Western Regional Climate Center period 

of record monthly climate summary, 1951–present. 

See www.wrcc.dri.edu. 

5 Growing Degree Day data was measured using 

the University of California Cooperative Extension 

method, which collects temperature data hourly in 

degrees Celsius. One GDD unit accumulates for 

each degree Celsius the hourly temperature reading 

is over the baseline of 10 degrees Celsius, the 

temperature below which there is virtually no 

growth in grape vines. 

remaining 60 percent of the soils are 

from the Chamise-Arnold-Crow Hill, the 

Shedd-Santa Lucia-Diablo, and the 

Toomes-Climara associations, which are 

all well-drained to excessively drained 

and range from very low to highly 

fertile. To the south of the proposed 

AVA, within the Santa Ynez Mountains, 

approximately 60 percent of the soils 

are from the Los Osos-Gaviota 

association, which is described as welldrained to excessively drained and very 

low to moderately fertile. The remaining 

40 percent of the soils is a combination 

of soils from Shedd-Santa Lucia-Diablo 

association and sedimentary rock that is 

not suitable for viticulture. To the west, 

within the Ballard Canyon AVA, 

approximately 95 percent of the soils 

are from the Chamise-Arnold-Crow Hill 

association, which are characterized as 

being well-drained to excessively 

drained and having very low to 

moderately low fertility. 

Climate 

Within the Central Coast AVA, where 

the proposed Los Olivos District AVA is 

located, temperatures are affected by 

cooling marine fog. Locations close to 

the Pacific Ocean have heavy marine 

fog, while locations farther inland, such 

as the proposed AVA, receive less fog. 

In general, marine fog contributes to 

cool daytime temperatures and warm 

nighttime temperatures. Because the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA is 

located about 30 miles inland from the 

Pacific Ocean, much of the marine fog 

has diminished by the time it reaches 

the proposed AVA in the late afternoon. 

However, enough fog remains to 

moderate the evening and nighttime 

temperatures. Due to the flat, open 

topography, the fog circulates freely 

throughout the entire proposed AVA. 

In locations where fog is present 

throughout most of the day, the 

difference between the daily high and 

daily low temperatures (diurnal 

temperature variation) is usually smaller 

than in regions where fog is less 

prevalent because fog lowers the 

daytime temperatures and warms the 

nighttime temperatures. The following 

table shows the average monthly diurnal 

temperature variation during the 

growing season measured at weather 

stations in the proposed Los Olivos 

District AVA and in regions to the east 

and west. Data was not available for 

locations to the north and south of the 

proposed AVA. 

AVERAGE MONTHLY DIURNAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION

[Degrees Fahrenheit] 

Month 

Lompoc 1

(West of proposed 

AVA) 

Ballard Canyon 

AVA2

(West of proposed 

AVA) 

Santa Ynez 3

(Within proposed 

AVA) 

Cachuma Lake 4

(East of proposed 

AVA) 

April .......................................................................................... 23 28 30 29.6 

May .......................................................................................... 20.5 30 28.5 30.8 

June ......................................................................................... 20 33 29.6 34.6 

July ........................................................................................... 19.1 37 30.5 38.4 

August ...................................................................................... 19.3 38 31.9 38.1 

September ............................................................................... 22.1 37 32.8 36.9 

October .................................................................................... 25.5 33 34.0 34.2 

The data shows that the proposed Los 

Olivos District AVA generally has 

smaller average monthly diurnal 

temperature variations than the region 

farther inland (Cachuma Lake) and 

greater average monthly variations than 

the region closer to the coast (Lompoc). 

Lompoc, which is located only 9 miles 

from the Pacific Ocean, has smaller 

average monthly diurnal temperature 

variations than the proposed AVA 

because the marine fog is heavy 

throughout the entire day, keeping 

daytime highs cool and allowing for 

only small drops in nighttime 

temperatures. From May through 

September, Cachuma Lake has greater 

average monthly diurnal temperature 

variations than the proposed AVA 

because the lake is farther from the 

ocean (approximately 36 miles). The 

marine fog has largely dissipated by the 

time it reaches Cachuma Lake, allowing 

daytime temperatures to rise higher and 

nighttime temperatures to drop lower 

than within the proposed AVA. During 

April and October, fog is lighter and 

occurs less frequently within the 

proposed AVA, so the diurnal 

temperature variations within the 

proposed AVA are similar to those at 

Cachuma Lake. The Ballard Canyon 

AVA is closer to the ocean than the 

proposed AVA, but the hills and 

canyons block much of the fog from 

entering the Ballard Canyon AVA. As a 

result, the Ballard Canyon AVA has 

generally greater diurnal temperature 

variations than the proposed Los Olivos 

District AVA. 

According to the petition, diurnal 

temperature variations during the 

growing season affect viticulture. Warm 

daytime temperatures encourage fruit 

maturation and sugar production, and 

cool nighttime temperatures minimize 

acid loss. Therefore, grapes in regions 

with large diurnal temperature 

variations ripen faster and have higher 

levels of sugar and acid than regions 

with smaller diurnal temperature 

variations. Additionally, because 

regions with large diurnal temperature 

variations generally have less fog, grapes 

in those regions are not at as great a risk 

of mildew or fungal diseases as areas 

with heavier fog and smaller diurnal 

temperature variations. 

The petition also included a summary 

of growing degree day (GDD) data 5

gathered during the 2007–2012 growing 

seasons for the proposed Los Olivos 

District AVA and the regions to the 

north, east, and west. Data was not 

available for the region to the south. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11358 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY OF GROWING DEGREE DAYS

[Degrees Celsius] 

Location (direction from proposed AVA) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average 

Proposed Los Olivos District AVA ........... 1,534 1,688 1,652 1,406 1,479 1,617 1,563 

Ballard Canyon AVA (West) .................... 1,140 1,546 1,540 1,314 1,397 1,494 1,450 

Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA 

(East) .................................................... 1,592 1,743 1,697 1,443 1,525 1,629 1,605 

San Rafael Mountains (North) ................. 1,748 1,952 1,850 1,521 1,587 1,753 1,735 

The data shows that the proposed Los 

Olivos District AVA has more growing 

degree days than the region to the 

immediate west and fewer than the 

regions to the north and east. According 

to the petition, GDD accumulation 

influences the grape varietals grown in 

a region. Warm regions typically grow 

Bordeaux and Rhone varietals, such as 

cabernet sauvignon and syrah, both of 

which are commonly grown within the 

proposed AVA. Additionally, warm 

temperatures promote vigorous vine 

growth and large leaf canopies, which 

affect decisions on row spacing, trellis 

design, pruning, and canopy 

management. 

Summary of Distinguishing Features 

In summary, the topography, soils, 

and climate of the proposed Los Olivos 

District AVA distinguish it from the 

surrounding regions. The proposed 

AVA is located on a broad alluvial 

plain. The terrain is open and flat, 

which reduces the risk of erosion and 

allows for the use of mechanized 

harvesting and tilling equipment in the 

vineyards. The open terrain also allows 

thin marine fog to circulate freely 

through the proposed AVA. The fog 

moderates temperatures, preventing the 

grapes from developing levels of sugars 

and acids that are too high. The 

moderate temperatures allow for a 

growing degree day accumulation that is 

high enough to grow warm climate 

varietals, including cabernet sauvignon 

and syrah. Finally, the soils within the 

proposed AVA are moderately drained 

to well-drained and have low to 

moderate fertility levels. As a result, 

vines are at a low risk for root disease 

or excessive growth, and vineyards do 

not require frequent irrigation. 

To the north, the high elevations of 

the San Rafael Mountains are above the 

fog line, and the terrain is higher, 

steeper, and more susceptible to erosion 

than the flat, gently sloping terrain of 

the proposed Los Olivos District AVA. 

To the east, the canyons and steeper 

terrain of the Happy Canyon of Santa 

Barbara AVA prevent marine fog from 

entering the AVA, resulting in higher 

GDD accumulations than within the 

proposed AVA. Additionally, the 

steepness of the terrain makes 

mechanized harvesting and tilling less 

practical than within the proposed 

AVA. To the south, the Santa Ynez 

Mountains and the Los Padres National 

Forest have high, rugged, steep terrain 

and rocky soils, making the region less 

suitable for viticulture than the 

proposed AVA. To the west, the Ballard 

Canyon AVA has rolling hills and mazelike canyons that block much of the 

marine fog from entering, resulting in 

greater average diurnal temperature 

variations than within the proposed 

AVA. 

Comparison of the Proposed Los Olivos 

District AVA to the Existing Santa Ynez 

Valley and Central Coast AVAs 

Santa Ynez Valley AVA 

The Santa Ynez Valley AVA was 

established by T.D. ATF–132, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on April 15, 1983 (48 FR 16252). The 

Santa Ynez Valley AVA encompasses 

the Sta. Rita Hills AVA, the Ballard 

Canyon AVA, and the Happy Canyon of 

Santa Barbara AVA, as well as the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA. 

According to T.D. ATF–132, the Santa 

Ynez Valley AVA is a valley that 

surrounds the Santa Ynez River and is 

bound by the Purisima Hills and San 

Rafael Mountains to the north, Cachuma 

Lake to the east, the Santa Ynez 

Mountains to the south, and the Santa 

Rita Hills to the west. Vineyards are 

planted on elevations ranging from 200 

feet along the Santa Ynez River to 1,500 

feet in the foothills of the San Rafael 

Mountains. The Santa Ynez Valley AVA 

has seven major soil associations, but 

vineyards are primarily planted on soils 

from the Positas-Ballard-Santa Ynez, 

Chamise-Arnold-Crow Hill, SheddSanta Lucia-Diablo, and SorrentoMocho-Camarillo associations. 

Temperatures within the Santa Ynez 

Valley AVA are generally warmer and 

less influenced by coastal breezes and 

fog than the region closer to the coast 

because the hills to the west of the AVA 

prevent much of the marine influence 

from reaching deep into the valley. Even 

without a heavy marine influence, fog is 

still common at elevations between 

1,000 and 1,200 feet within the Santa 

Ynez Valley AVA. 

The proposed Los Olivos District 

AVA is located at the center of the Santa 

Ynez Valley AVA and shares some 

broad characteristics with the 

established AVA. Like much of the 

Santa Ynez Valley AVA, the proposed 

Los Olivos District AVA receives some 

marine fog from the Pacific Ocean. 

However, due to its central location, the 

proposed AVA is warmer than regions 

within the western portion of the Santa 

Ynez Valley AVA (such as the Sta. Rita 

Hills AVA) and cooler than regions 

within the eastern portion (such as the 

Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara AVA). 

The fairly level alluvial plain 

topography of the proposed AVA is 

more uniform than the topography of 

the larger Santa Ynez Valley AVA, 

which also includes mountains and 

canyons. In contrast to the varied soils 

of the Santa Ynez Valley AVA, the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA soils 

are predominately from the PositasBallard-Santa Ynez association. 

Central Coast AVA 

The large, 1 million-acre Central Coast 

AVA was established by T.D. ATF–216, 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on October 24, 1985 (50 FR 

43128). The Central Coast AVA 

encompasses all or portions of the 

California counties of Contra Costa, 

Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, 

Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, 

Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa 

Barbara, and it contains 28 established 

AVAs. T.D. ATF–216 describes the 

Central Coast viticultural area as 

extending from Santa Barbara to the San 

Francisco Bay area and east to the 

California Coastal Ranges. The 

distinguishing feature of the Central 

Coast AVA addressed in T.D. ATF–216 

is that all of the included counties 

experience marine climate influence 

due to their proximity to the Pacific 

Ocean. 

The proposed Los Olivos District 

AVA, located within Santa Barbara 

County, is also located within the 

Central Coast AVA. Marine fog, which 

is the primary characteristic of the 

Central Coast AVA, is present within 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11359 

the proposed AVA during the growing 

season. However, due to its smaller size, 

the proposed viticultural area has 

greater uniformity in geographical 

features, such as topography, climate, 

and soils, than the larger Central Coast 

AVA. 

TTB Determination 

TTB concludes that the petition to 

establish the approximately 22,820-acre 

Los Olivos District AVA merits 

consideration and public comment, as 

invited in this document of proposed 

rulemaking. 

Boundary Description 

See the narrative description of the 

boundary of the petitioned-for AVA in 

the proposed regulatory text published 

at the end of this proposed rule. 

TTB notes that although narrative 

descriptions of AVA boundaries usually 

follow a clockwise direction, the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA 

boundary description follows a 

counterclockwise direction in order to 

align the proposed eastern boundary 

more easily with the western boundary 

of the established Happy Canyon of 

Santa Barbara AVA. 

Maps 

The petitioner provided the required 

maps, and they are listed below in the 

proposed regulatory text. 

Impact on Current Wine Labels 

Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits 

any label reference on a wine that 

indicates or implies an origin other than 

the wine’s true place of origin. For a 

wine to be labeled with an AVA name 

or with a brand name that includes an 

AVA name or other term identified as 

viticulturally significant in part 9 of the 

TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of 

the wine must be derived from grapes 

grown within the area represented by 

that name or other term, and the wine 

must meet the other conditions listed in 

§ 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 

CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not 

eligible for labeling with an AVA name 

or other viticulturally significant term 

and that name or term appears in the 

brand name, then the label is not in 

compliance, and the bottler must change 

the brand name and obtain approval of 

a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name 

or other viticulturally significant term 

appears in another reference on the 

label in a misleading manner, the bottler 

would have to obtain approval of a new 

label. Different rules apply if a wine has 

a brand name containing an AVA name 

or other viticulturally significant term 

that was used as a brand name on a 

label approved before July 7, 1986. See 

§ 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 

CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details. 

If TTB establishes this proposed AVA, 

its name, ‘‘Los Olivos District,’’ will be 

recognized as a name of viticultural 

significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the 

TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). TTB 

also believes that the term ‘‘Los Olivos,’’ 

standing alone, has viticultural 

significance, as this name appears to be 

primarily associated with the grapegrowing and wine-producing region of 

the proposed AVA. Therefore, if TTB 

establishes this proposed AVA, the term 

‘‘Los Olivos’’ also will be recognized as 

a term of viticultural significance under 

27 CFR 4.39(i)(3). The text of the 

proposed regulation clarifies this point. 

Consequently, wine bottlers using the 

name ‘‘Los Olivos District’’ or ‘‘Los 

Olivos’’ in a brand name, including a 

trademark, or in another label reference 

as to the origin of the wine, would have 

to ensure that the product is eligible to 

use the AVA name as an appellation of 

origin if this proposed rule is adopted 

as a final rule. 

The approval of the proposed Los 

Olivos District AVA would not affect 

any existing AVA, and any bottlers 

using ‘‘Central Coast’’ or ‘‘Santa Ynez 

Valley’’ as an appellation of origin or in 

a brand name for wines made from 

grapes grown within the Central Coast 

AVA or Santa Ynez Valley would not be 

affected by the establishment of this 

new AVA. The establishment of the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA 

would allow vintners to use ‘‘Los Olivos 

District,’’ ‘‘Santa Ynez Valley,’’ and 

‘‘Central Coast’’ as appellations of origin 

for wines made from grapes grown 

within the proposed Los Olivos District 

AVA, if the wines meet the eligibility 

requirements for the appellation. 

Public Participation 

Comments Invited 

TTB invites comments from interested 

members of the public on whether it 

should establish the proposed AVA. 

TTB is also interested in receiving 

comments on the sufficiency and 

accuracy of the name, boundary, soils, 

climate, and other required information 

submitted in support of the petition. In 

addition, given the proposed Los Olivos 

District AVA’s location within the 

existing Central Coast AVA and Santa 

Ynez Valley AVA, TTB is interested in 

comments on whether the evidence 

submitted in the petition regarding the 

distinguishing features of the proposed 

AVA sufficiently differentiates it from 

the existing Central Coast AVA and 

Santa Ynez Valley AVA. TTB is also 

interested in comments on whether the 

geographic features of the proposed 

AVA are so distinguishable from the 

surrounding Central Coast AVA and 

Santa Ynez Valley AVA that the 

proposed Los Olivos District AVA 

should no longer be part of those AVAs. 

Please provide any available specific 

information in support of your 

comments. 

Because of the potential impact of the 

establishment of the proposed Los 

Olivos District AVA on wine labels that 

include the term ‘‘Los Olivos District’’ 

or ‘‘Los Olivos’’ as discussed above 

under Impact on Current Wine Labels, 

TTB is particularly interested in 

comments regarding whether there will 

be a conflict between the proposed AVA 

name and currently used brand names. 

If a commenter believes that a conflict 

will arise, the comment should describe 

the nature of that conflict, including any 

anticipated negative economic impact 

that approval of the proposed AVA will 

have on an existing viticultural 

enterprise. TTB is also interested in 

receiving suggestions for ways to avoid 

conflicts, for example, by adopting a 

modified or different name for the AVA. 

Submitting Comments 

You may submit comments on this 

document by using one of the following 

three methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You 

may send comments via the online 

comment form posted with this 

document within Docket No. TTB– 

2015–0004 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the 

Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available under Notice 

No. 148 on the TTB Web site at http:/

/www.ttb.gov/wine/winerulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files 

may be attached to comments submitted 

via Regulations.gov. For complete 

instructions on how to use 

Regulations.gov, visit the site and click 

on the ‘‘Help’’ tab. 

• U.S. Mail: You may send comments 

via postal mail to the Director, 

Regulations and Rulings Division, 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, 

Washington, DC 20005. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: You may 

hand-carry your comments or have them 

hand-carried to the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 

Street NW., Suite 200–E, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

Please submit your comments by the 

closing date shown above in the DATES

section of this document. Your 

comments must reference Notice No. 

148 and include your name and mailing 

address. Your comments also must be 

made in English, be legible, and be 

written in language acceptable for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11360 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

public disclosure. TTB does not 

acknowledge receipt of comments, and 

TTB considers all comments as 

originals. 

In your comment, please clearly state 

if you are commenting for yourself or on 

behalf of an association, business, or 

other entity. If you are commenting on 

behalf of an entity, your comment must 

include the entity’s name, as well as 

your name and position title. If you 

comment via Regulations.gov, please 

enter the entity’s name in the 

‘‘Organization’’ blank of the online 

comment form. If you comment via 

postal mail or hand delivery/courier, 

please submit your entity’s comment on 

letterhead. 

You may also write to the 

Administrator before the comment 

closing date to ask for a public hearing. 

The Administrator reserves the right to 

determine whether to hold a public 

hearing. 

Confidentiality 

All submitted comments and 

attachments are part of the public record 

and subject to disclosure. Do not 

enclose any material in your comments 

that you consider to be confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

Public Disclosure 

TTB will post, and you may view, 

copies of this document, selected 

supporting materials, and any online or 

mailed comments received about this 

proposal within Docket No. TTB–2015– 

0004 on the Federal e-rulemaking 

portal, Regulations.gov, at http://

www.regulations.gov. A direct link to 

that docket is available on the TTB Web 

site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_

rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 148. 

You may also reach the relevant docket 

through the Regulations.gov search page 

at http://www.regulations.gov. For 

information on how to use 

Regulations.gov, click on the site’s 

‘‘Help’’ tab. 

All posted comments will display the 

commenter’s name, organization (if 

any), city, and State, and, in the case of 

mailed comments, all address 

information, including email addresses. 

TTB may omit voluminous attachments 

or material that the Bureau considers 

unsuitable for posting. 

You may also view copies of this 

document, all related petitions, maps 

and other supporting materials, and any 

electronic or mailed comments that TTB 

receives about this proposal by 

appointment at the TTB Information 

Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20005. You may also 

obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 x 11- 

inch page. Please note that TTB is 

unable to provide copies of USGS maps 

or other similarly-sized documents that 

may be included as part of the AVA 

petition. Contact TTB’s information 

specialist at the above address or by 

telephone at 202–453–2270 to schedule 

an appointment or to request copies of 

comments or other materials. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

TTB certifies that this proposed 

regulation, if adopted, would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed regulation imposes no 

new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

administrative requirement. Any benefit 

derived from the use of a viticultural 

area name would be the result of a 

proprietor’s efforts and consumer 

acceptance of wines from that area. 

Therefore, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required. 

Executive Order 12866 

It has been determined that this 

proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993. Therefore, no regulatory 

assessment is required. 

Drafting Information 

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations 

and Rulings Division drafted this notice 

of proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 

Wine. 

Proposed Regulatory Amendment 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 

27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL 

AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 

Subpart C—Approved American 

Viticultural Areas 

■ 2. Subpart C is amended by adding 

§ 9.___ to read as follows: 

§ 9. Los Olivos District. 

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural 

area described in this section is ‘‘Los 

Olivos District’’. For purposes of part 4 

of this chapter, ‘‘Los Olivos District’’ 

and ‘‘Los Olivos’’ are terms of 

viticultural significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The four United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the Los 

Olivos District viticultural area are 

titled: 

(1) Los Olivos, CA, 1995; 

(2) Zaca Creek, Calif., 1959; 

(3) Solvang, CA, 1995; and 

(4) Santa Ynez, CA, 1995. 

(c) Boundary. The Los Olivos District 

viticultural area is located in Santa 

Barbara County, California. The 

boundary of the Los Olivos District 

viticultural area is as described below: 

(1) The beginning point is on the Los 

Olivos map at the intersection of Foxen 

Canyon Road with California State Road 

154 (known locally as San Marcos Pass 

Road/Chumash Highway), section 23, 

T7N/R31W. 

(2) From the beginning point, proceed 

southwesterly in a straight line 

approximately 0.3 mile, crossing onto 

the Zaca Creek map, to the intersection 

of Ballard Canyon Road and an 

unnamed, unimproved road known 

locally as Los Olivos Meadows Drive, 

T7N/R31W; then 

(3) Proceed south-southeasterly in a 

straight line approximately 1 mile, 

crossing onto the Los Olivos map, to a 

marked, unnamed structure within a 

circular-shaped 920-foot contour line in 

the southwest corner of section 26, T7N/ 

R31W; then 

(4) Proceed south-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 1.25 miles, 

crossing onto the Zaca Creek map, to the 

point marked by the ‘‘Ball’’ 801-foot 

elevation control point, T6N/R31W; 

then 

(5) Proceed south-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 1.45 miles, 

crossing onto the Solvang map, to a 

marked, unnamed 775-foot peak, T6N/

R31W; then 

(6) Proceed south-southwesterly in a 

straight line approximately 0.55 mile to 

a marked communication tower located 

within the 760-foot contour line, T6N/ 

R31W; then 

(7) Proceed south in a straight line 

approximately 0.6 mile to the 

intersection of Chalk Hill Road with an 

unnamed creek descending from Adobe 

Canyon, northwest of the unnamed road 

known locally as Fredensborg Canyon 

Road, T6N/R31W; then 

(8) Proceed southwesterly 

(downstream) along the creek 

approximately 1 mile to the creek’s 

intersection with the Santa Ynez River, 

T6N/R31W; then 

(9) Proceed easterly (upstream) along 

the Santa Ynez River approximately 8 

miles, crossing onto the Santa Ynez 

map, to the river’s intersection with 

State Highway 154, T6N/R30W; then 

(10) Proceed north-northwest in a 

straight line approximately 1.2 miles to 

the marked 924-foot elevation point, 

T6R/R30W; then 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11361 

(11) Proceed north-northwest in a 

straight line 1.2 miles to the ‘‘Y’’ in an 

unimproved road 0.1 mile south of the 

800-foot contour line, west of Happy 

Canyon Road, T6R/R30W; then 

(12) Proceed north-northwest in a 

straight line for 0.5 mile, crossing onto 

the Los Olivos map, and continuing 

approximately 2.3 miles to the third 

intersection of the line with the 1,000- 

foot contour line northwest of BM 812, 

T7N/R30W; then 

(13) Proceed westerly along the 

meandering 1,000-foot contour line to 

the contour line’s intersection with an 

unnamed, unimproved road, an 

unnamed light-duty road, and the 

northern boundary line of section 23, 

T7N/R31W; then 

(14) Proceed northerly, then westerly, 

along the unnamed, unimproved road to 

Figueroa Mountain Road, near the 

marked 895-foot elevation, T7N/R31W; 

then 

(15) Proceed north on Figueroa 

Mountain Road approximately 400 feet 

to the 920-foot contour line, T7N/R31W; 

then 

(16) Proceed initially south, then 

northeasterly along the meandering 920- 

foot contour line, crossing onto the Zaca 

Creek map, to Foxen Canyon Road, 

T7N/R31W; then 

(17) Proceed southeasterly on Foxen 

Canyon Road approximately 1.7 miles, 

crossing onto the Los Olivos map, 

returning to the beginning point. 

Dated: February 23, 2015. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04253 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014– 

0760; FRL–9923–25] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Proposed Significant New Use Rule on 

Certain Chemical Substances; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register of January 7, 2015, 

concerning proposed significant new 

use rules for 13 chemical substances 

which were the subject of 

premanufacture notices (PMNs). This 

document extends the comment period 

for 45 days, from March 9, 2015 to April 

23, 2015. Multiple commenters 

requested additional time to research 

and submit more detailed comments 

concerning the proposed SNURs. EPA is 

therefore extending the comment period 

in order to give all interested persons 

the opportunity to comment fully. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on January 7, 

2015 (80 FR 845) is extended. 

Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2014–0760 must be received on 

or before April 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES

in the Federal Register document of 

January 7, 2015 (80 FR 845) (FRL–9919– 

23). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Kenneth 

Moss, Chemical Control Division, Office 

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(202) 564–9232; email address: 

moss.kenneth@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document extends the public comment 

period established in the Federal 

Register proposed rule of January 7, 

2015. In that document, EPA proposed 

significant new use rules for 13 

chemical substances which were the 

subject of premanufacture notices 

(PMNs). EPA is hereby extending the 

comment period, which was set to end 

on March 9, 2015, to April 23, 2015. 

To submit comments, or access the 

docket, please follow the detailed 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES

in the Federal Register proposed rule of 

January 7, 2015. If you have questions, 

consult the technical person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 20, 2015. 

Maria J. Doa, 

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office 

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04406 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0990] 

RIN 1625–AB56 

Vessel Documentation Renewal Fees 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks public 

comment on whether to increase the 

period of validity for renewing 

endorsements on Certificates of 

Documentation. A separate fee of $26 

for annual renewals of endorsements 

upon the Certificate of Documentation 

was established in a recent rulemaking. 

The Coast Guard is considering options 

for implementing multiyear renewals 

and updating the fee for services, and 

seeks information on factors to consider 

when implementing these changes. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must either be submitted to the online 

docket via http://www.regulations.gov 

on or before June 1, 2015 or reach the 

Docket Management Facility by that 

date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–0990 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this 

document, call or email Ms. Mary Jager, 

CG–DCO–832, Coast Guard; telephone 

202–372–1331, email Mary.K.Jager@

uscg.mil. If you have questions on 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS